Who's for 50 Megapixels?

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:27:12 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the D810
(36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't want all
those humongous files filling up my system when they didn't give me
anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion applies in spades to
24MP vs 50MP.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 02/06/2015 04:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:27:12 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the D810
(36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't want all
those humongous files filling up my system when they didn't give me
anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion applies in spades to
24MP vs 50MP.




50 MP camera might be good for producing ten-foot-tall prints.

On 2015.02.06 17:43 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:27:12 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the D810
(36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't want all
those humongous files filling up my system when they didn't give me
anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion applies in spades to
24MP vs 50MP.

Quite agree.

24 - 50MP is only 44% more resolved detail so not really noticeable for
99% of photographs that 99% of photographers do.

One would also need the better lenses to take advantage of it all.

As to file size, I think storage per unit of money has outpaced pixel
density, generally, so no biggie there...


--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin

On 2015.02.06 17:51 , philo wrote:
On 02/06/2015 04:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:27:12 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the D810
(36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't want all
those humongous files filling up my system when they didn't give me
anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion applies in spades to
24MP vs 50MP.




50 MP camera might be good for producing ten-foot-tall prints.

Which are looked at from so far back that an 8 Mpix camera will usually
suffice.


--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:05:01 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015.02.06 17:43 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:27:12 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the D810
(36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't want all
those humongous files filling up my system when they didn't give me
anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion applies in spades to
24MP vs 50MP.

Quite agree.

24 - 50MP is only 44% more resolved detail so not really noticeable for
99% of photographs that 99% of photographers do.

One would also need the better lenses to take advantage of it all.

As to file size, I think storage per unit of money has outpaced pixel
density, generally, so no biggie there...

I am running out of room on parts of the 970 GB I have on my main
computer and the 1.8TB external drive is nearly full. The 500 GB
shared drive on my secondary computer has already overflowed and had
to have some stuff chucked off. It's getting to the stage with the
various backup strategies that my computers spends as much time
shifting stuff around as they do working. I don't to make things worse
and I don't want to spend money on soon-to-be-obsolescent network
storage.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

PAS wrote:
Canon's sensors are at least 2 stops behind the competition on base ISO
DR. A 50MP FX with 7DII low ISO read noise at the pixel level would be
pretty frustrating to use for landscape photography.

I take it you are a professional landscape photographer. You are the
first professional I have hard complaining about Canon dynamic range or
noise. Usually it's amateurs who dwell on the hypothetical who complain
about such things, while real-world photographers go merrily on their
way.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As to file size, I think storage per unit of money has outpaced pixel
density, generally, so no biggie there...

I am running out of room on parts of the 970 GB I have on my main
computer and the 1.8TB external drive is nearly full. The 500 GB
shared drive on my secondary computer has already overflowed and had
to have some stuff chucked off. It's getting to the stage with the
various backup strategies that my computers spends as much time
shifting stuff around as they do working. I don't to make things worse
and I don't want to spend money on soon-to-be-obsolescent network
storage.

get a few more multi-terabyte drives. they're cheap and network storage
will not be obsolete any time soon either.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 19:02:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As to file size, I think storage per unit of money has outpaced pixel
density, generally, so no biggie there...

I am running out of room on parts of the 970 GB I have on my main
computer and the 1.8TB external drive is nearly full. The 500 GB
shared drive on my secondary computer has already overflowed and had
to have some stuff chucked off. It's getting to the stage with the
various backup strategies that my computers spends as much time
shifting stuff around as they do working. I don't to make things worse
and I don't want to spend money on soon-to-be-obsolescent network
storage.

get a few more multi-terabyte drives. they're cheap and network storage
will not be obsolete any time soon either.

Network storage (plus backup) is not cheap and, espcially with 50MB
files it would not be long before whatever I bought now would be too
small. That's why I referred to it as "soon-to-be-obsolete".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:05:01 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015.02.06 17:43 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:27:12 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the D810
(36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't want all
those humongous files filling up my system when they didn't give me
anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion applies in spades to
24MP vs 50MP.

Quite agree.

24 - 50MP is only 44% more resolved detail so not really noticeable for
99% of photographs that 99% of photographers do.

One would also need the better lenses to take advantage of it all.

As to file size, I think storage per unit of money has outpaced pixel
density, generally, so no biggie there...


what better justification to want/need newer, better, more expensive
lenses?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As to file size, I think storage per unit of money has outpaced pixel
density, generally, so no biggie there...

I am running out of room on parts of the 970 GB I have on my main
computer and the 1.8TB external drive is nearly full. The 500 GB
shared drive on my secondary computer has already overflowed and had
to have some stuff chucked off. It's getting to the stage with the
various backup strategies that my computers spends as much time
shifting stuff around as they do working. I don't to make things worse
and I don't want to spend money on soon-to-be-obsolescent network
storage.

get a few more multi-terabyte drives. they're cheap and network storage
will not be obsolete any time soon either.

Network storage (plus backup) is not cheap

yes it is.

in fact, it's the same price as non-network storage because it's the
exact same drives.

and, espcially with 50MB
files it would not be long before whatever I bought now would be too
small. That's why I referred to it as "soon-to-be-obsolete".

a 4 tb drive holds around 80,000 50mb photos.

if you shoot 16,000 photos per year, you'll fill that in about 5 years.

i don't know what you consider 'not be long' but in 5 years, you'll be
wanting to replace the drive anyway because the chance of a drive
failure starts to go up dramatically.