There are a number of threads here on the new Sony A7r3 mirrorless camera, and I even started one myself. It would be nice if we could keep this thread here on topic, since that is why I am posting it and perhaps post other issues on more general threads.
What I would like to discuss is why the A7R3 may be particularly useful to me and the reasons I feel this way. And, of course, I am trolling here for more information on this topic and other photographers with a similar bent.
The first “major” DSLR that I had was the Nikon D1X, sometime in 2001. And I have had almost all of the DSLRs from Nikon since then, at least of the landscape variety. Since I shoot close-up nature photos, I never cared about sports-related cameras, high ISOs, and autofocus.
Anyway, for me, there have been a string of cameras all the way up to Nikon’s recent release of the D850. In my case, it’s always been onward and upward, onward to more and better features and upward toward sensors with ever greater megapixels. And the last couple of years have been kind of a climax of sorts, at least a branching out of options. And of course, I was swept up in it all, especially the seeming-endless waiting, etc. I marched through buying (and returning) three medium-format cameras, a long time ago the Mamiya RZ67 (with eleven lenses) and more recently the Hasselblad X1D and the Fujifilm GFX.
And along in there I also bought and tested out the Pentax K3 and K1, mostly because of their pixel-shift technology. And I had the Sony A7S and A7R. I bought the A7R2, sold it, bought it again and sold it yesterday. I also ordered a copy of the A7R3 yesterday, mainly because of the pixel-shift feature, which brings me to my point in writing this.
Of course, like many of us I am in the habit of getting cameras with more and better pixels, and without really thinking about it I imagined I would like a 100 Mpx camera or even greater. However, I have been recently having doubts about this after getting the Nikon D850 camera, with its 45.7 Mpx.
I have a very big and fast PC, one with two GPUs, eight cores, a fast processor, 128 GB of RAM, etc. However, I did notice with the new Nikon D850, which has only a modest increase in megapixels, a difference in the computing power required. Keep in mind, that I stack focus, so I often have to process 100 or more large TIF files in the same batch. This takes time, and with the D850 it takes a little MORE time. Not that much, actually.
However, I can see that when we get 100 Mpx sensors, it will increasingly take more time (and storage). I keep all my stacked layers, so I have many hundreds of thousands of images by now. And this set me to thinking.
Of course, I have wanted larger sensors, but not just for more megapixels, but for larger-sized photosites that collect more light. That is why I originally purchased a Sony A7s, for more light and larger photosites or whatever we call them.
By using the Pentax K3 and K1, both of which have pixel-shifting technology in them, I could see that they provided superior color and its resulting resolution, but I was not happy the way Pentax handled non-native lenses (of which I have a lot), so eventually it was more trouble than it was worth and the Pentax lenses did not make me happy. I like APO lenses.
So, my point and perhaps question here to those techsperts out there is: can we have a discussion here about perhaps not yearning for ever greater-sized sensors and concentrate more on improving the color and resolution in smaller-sized sensors, the ones we already are using.
I am happy with about 50 Mpx in sensor size, not less please, but perhaps I don’t need more. Since I don’t make prints of my images (never have), I only need a size to display on the web or place in an e-book format. Typically, I used images that are 2048 pixels on the long side for what I post, depending on where I post of course.
So, I’m wondering if my Nikon D850, which is great by the way, much nicer than I had imagined, along with the new Sony A7R3 (if it works as advertised) might be all that I need? At 42 Mpx, the A7R3 is not much different than the 45.7 Mpx of the D850, and that may be as much as I need.
I am wondering, since I ONLY do still photography on a tripod, whether the pixel-shift technology of the A7R3 may give me the color (most important to me) and the enhanced resolution (however that works), so that instead of having to ever project myself forward to larger and larger sensors, I might (at least for a time) be happy with what I have (or will soon have with the A7R3)?
I am sure some of you here will have more technical thoughts about this conundrum I am in, either agreeing with me or pointing out something I have not thought of. Thanks for feedback.
P.S. This is the style of photography I tend to do, this with the D810 if I remember right.
