The mp "war"... which side are you on?

[BernardLanguillier]

Everytime soneone here complains about DR, Bruce Percy creates anothing kickass image on Velvia.

And that's great. It is possible to shoot great images with Velvia, but I am sure you'll agree that Velvia isn't a great solution for many interesting shooting situations also.

The whole discussion, I believe, is about value comparing options.

Unfortunately, there isn't any perfect camera ideal for all styles of shootings and affordable to all. Each solution has plus and minus, DR is on the list of things that do matter, probably the part that matters most to me. You will probably think that color is more important for what you shoot, others will consider that the lack of color issues when tilting a lens is more important...

All these points of views are valid because we all have different needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

I mentioned Bruce Pery because landscapers generally complain the loudest about DR.

Read this article the other day and the first thing that came to my mind is this forum:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/09/one-making-bad-camera-youre-just-bad-photographer/#.Vpdy1FL_GsI

Complaining about gear is well and good, but not when it starts to outweigh the output made with the said gear.

[hjulenissen]

As I said before, I would trust much better Leica engineers about what is "optimum" pixel size than any forum "Einstein" or than Sony... Reason for the "forum Einsteins" is obvious, reason for trusting Leica more than Sony is simply because Sony's marketing has a reputation for "quantity is all that people understand" approach, while Leica addresses their products (again traditionally) to photo-graphers and their needs.

The only ones I distrust more than scientists are those who are too lazy to do science themselves and rather put their trust in authority (be it gods, marketing people in some commercial cooperation or otherwise).

-h

[Theodoros]

As is clear on the O/P, this is a discussion on the "mp war" and whether one believes "more is better" or if the drawbacks are more than the gain... Most posters seem to agree that with too high mp count there are more problems created and no real benefit added.
I guess the next step in a discussion is for posters to suggest (and back up with evidence) what the optimum should be... meaning the point where more resolution is pointless, quality benefits from other than resolution factors and also, usability of an MFDB expands...  On the later, many seem to agree (especially those that use technical cameras) that if a back doesn't perform well on a tech camera it is a serious drawback for ones photography.

Obviously, it is natural for one to link the subject under discussion with the latest Sony MF sensor since it sets a new record on mp count among MFDBs and is only second to Canon's 5ds among "large sensors" (meaning FF size and larger) for smaller pixel size.
My personal opinion, is that it would be best if the same sensor was of 6μm pixels, would have "only" 60mp of resolution for the same size and the pixels where more "friendly" when used with cameras with movements. I would even prefer it more if it was of a bit lesser size (the traditional 49x37 comes to mind) as with 24 & 28mm lenses available, there is no problem for one to have an UWA lens but all lenses of a platform would benefit too for edge IQ at the same time, as well as having extra image circle tolerances that would allow more movements on a tech camera. The resulting 50mp or resolution (for 6μm of pixel size at 49x37mm sensor size) I wouldn't mind at all...