| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I believe we have reached a technology plateau now and that in fact 12-24MP is probably a sweet spot......... the 16MP are really all I want and need.
Absolutely!
In the old film days the main delination in quality was the format. Sure ASA played its part but the big step was negative/slide size. If they could have made full frame cameras portable, light and with multiple exposures...we would have all had one. But we 'compromised' with 35mm and / or medium format. The reasoning was obvious.
In the digital age we have been spoilt. The sensor development is breaking down the traditional steps in quality. The DSLRs are now approaching (if not already) the quality of a film medium format camera. The digital medium formats are approaching the plate camera quality.
Add to this, the fact that with film, 2 chemical processes (film and print) and the vagueries of a projection process were involved before you got your print...and digital starts to nose ahead on all fronts.
More than ever we have reached a cross roads where (as Rich more eloquently put it) a cameras image quality isnt the deciding factor for most of us now.
The handling ergonomics have become more important ...just like the old full frame film days.
Having a lightweight, unobtrusive camera that delivers sharp hand held images (be that stabilisation systems or pixel density) seems to be a key parameter in many people's thinking.
The additional impact of having to process larger and larger file sizes in many ways mirrors the 'economic inertia' associated with the old full frame cameras. It was too expensive to shoot 10x8 film as a hobby....similarly, buying bigger and faster computers JUST to process photos falls into the same category.
More than ever we need to consider if a camera is 'fit for our purpose'.
Last edited on Thu Jan 31st, 2013 07:44 by Eric
____________________
Eric