If you were designing your dream digital camera, let's say it had a full frame sensor, what would be the megapixel count? Surely you don't want to cram a bunch pickles in one jar. So what would you say is the sweet spot?
>>2847361
what a qt.
also, fuck you OP.
Probs somewhere between 24-36 I think... Anymore than 36 then there's too much detail to worry about (more visible flaws = more time photoshop)
>>2847361
All I want is an 8mpx full frame censor.
5Ds is 50 megapickles but the high isos are trash
if you were only going to work with studio lighting and and could do everything at 100 iso then yea, get all the pixels
20 ish seems good for me
>>2847459
why 8?
>>2847914
I have a use for anything bigger than 8mpx. I don't like to crop or resize. Not to mention that the more megapixels you have the more you need more you need better modern optics. The more megapixels you have, the better a crappy lens performs but it also shows how inferior they are to modern lenses. Less than 8mpx doesn't give much to sink your teeth on.
>>2847361
24 without an AA filter seems just about right for me. Small enough to work with, large enough to masturbate over when I feel like it.
Anything below 1 so I don't have to resize before I post it on /p/
>>2847459
a7s has 12, great high iso and vidya
>>2847925
>I have no use for anything bigger than 8mpx.
Is what I meant to say.
Anyone who says they don't want 36-50 hasn't shot a high resolution camera yet. It really is a gamechanger and makes for a more flexible camera.
>>2848013
What would be the downside of using a super high resolution camera? Are there any?
>>2848039
Just file handling.
Giant files slow down the camera, slow down your computer, and fill up your harddrives.
The payoff is bigger, more detailed printing capability, sharper pictures and smoother tonal gradations.
>>2848013
Agreed, I finally started using a d810 and didn't expect there to be much of a difference between 24 and 36 but I was proven wrong.
Granted, I only use it for studio stuff when I have strobes etc so the high iso performance isn't an issue for me
>>2848013
If you don't print, the only difference is masturbatory.
>>2848013
I've gone from 12 to 24 to 16 and now back to 12 (plus a 16MP point and shoot on the side) and while there was clearly a difference in resolution at pixel peeping level, I honestly cannot tell any difference at web display sizes and I really don't see any of the supposed difference in tonality and all that.
Full frame 645 no AA dream
7680 x 4320 minimum
33 Megapixels minimum
Can achieve 4K (full bleed images on current display technology and/or wallpapers) after oversampling by double, fully eliminating sharpness loss via bayer filter interpolation.
Bonus mode: I'd take X-trans over Foevon, for the occasional shots above base ISO.
Nikon D800, Sony A7R, and Pentax 645 are all appealing body lines, although I'd have to reach for Phase One to get the full 645 size. My personal pick would be the Nikon D800 type camera, for the extended battery life compared to the A7R and decreased weight compared to the 645.
>>2847427
On the money
>>2848054
In theory up to 33 megapixels makes a difference for electronic display. Although, many of us still like to print, and 33 will ride you all the way to 24x36 inches at incredible quality.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Leica Camera AG Camera Model M Monochrom Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4682 Image Height 3115 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2013:07:18 23:23:56 Exposure Time 1/125 sec Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1000 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 620 Image Height 412 Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 000000000000000000000000000010B9
>>2848013
fuck i already really want to buy a 5DS now i want to even more
>>2848053
The high iso performance thing is sort of a myth. If you downsample, you also subtract a lot of noise. There are side-by-side comparisons of the A7r versus the A7s at the same iso, with the A7r downsampled to match the A7s's 12 megapixels, and they look basically identical.
>>2848101
While that's true, the a7s is less expensive, shoots faster, and works with a much slower computer - so there is a place for it
>>2848689
The a7s was and is actually more expensive than the a7r. I will concede that a lower resolution camera both shoots and operates faster than a higher resolution camera. The "slow computer" is irrelevant. Processor and ram speed should never be the bottleneck in your workflow. This ain't 8k video. You can pick up a desktop that can burn through any file any camera can send you for $500.
>>2848696
I meant processor speed and ram lol
>>2848696
>Has never worked extensively with masks, layers, blending modes, plugins, blur, or liquify.
24
>>2848893
What?
You're the one that made the statement that any $500 system would be fine, so clearly being a poorfag isn't an issue... I however, use a 3000 custom PC with 32 gigs of ram and still get bogged down because I do real (read: Not VSCO presets in Lightroom) edting.
>>2848895
I've been using Photoshop since 3.0 and I don't believe you. :)
>>2847361
i want it all metal, optical, and not built by the squinty eyed ones and not price jewed like a leica.
>>2847361
Regardless of sensor size, I'd probably stick to between 5~6µm pixel density, any more and it becomes hard to handle, any less and it's not the level of detail I've come to expect.
