More megapixels is almost always better, so...

sjones wrote in post #19314952
“More megapixels is almost always better.” The very premise of this title is debatable. In regards to the average photography enthusiast, how is 100MP realistically better (and I stress realistically) than 20MP or even 12MP? By “most everyone loves that” do you mean “most pixel peepers”? The average person (type who uses a camera phone for snapshots, for example) could probably succeed very well with just 6MP to 8MP, maybe less (I printed good 8X10s with my 4MP Canon G3).

True, there’s cropping advantages to larger MP count, from which some photographers would greatly benefit, and I presume higher MPs allow for removal of the distorting anti-aliasing filter. And for those exceedingly rare people who print, let alone print very large, more megapixels are of value. And yes, if one is truly concerned about image quality, you should print, because for me, no computer monitor, 27” or not, aesthetically surpasses a print. I know others will disagree, and that’s perfectly OK, but that’s kind of the point when discussing “what most everyone loves”; it becomes a bit more complicated.

Anyway, whether necessary or not, MP count will continue to grow for marketing purposes if nothing else…the megapixel race never really died. But keep in mind that while an affordable 100MP sensor, or perhaps a one gigabyte sensor, sounds tantalizing, it would, as others have noted, also necessitate buying higher end lenses to truly capitalize on the resolution as well as demand more costly computer and storage options. And you better keep that camera still, real still.

So as 40MP becomes the average MP for hobby/pro cameras (is “prosumer” used anymore?), there’s still some folks who love their Nikon D700 or original Canon 5D, and for good reason.

As for me, I use Tri-X, so however that contentiously translates to MP count, it’s what I’m stuck with, and I’m very happy about that!

I'm not disagreeing with anything you wrote, just adding a little bit to the discussion.. However, with respect to the highlighted text, there's also hard resolution limit imposed by diffraction- look up "diffraction limited optics".

All of these things are true, but I still land on 'cost' being the most root cause. As consumer goods, the makers need to be able to produce the systems (bodies, sensors and lenses) at a price point that will give them the widest adoption; even if the only tech the companies offered on the consumer market were MF systems and they were mass producing them, the cost would be prohibitively high for more people than the current offerings in 35mm, 4/3, APS-C markets.

"Cost" being a term that includes all of the points that previous posters have made; not *only* dollars and cents. There is "cost" to the designs and usability of the systems (portability, size/compactness, interface, etc). If you dropped a 100MP 4/3 system and a 100MP MF system at the same price point, the larger share of that market would choose the 4/3 simply for portability's sake; they can take it with them easier. Some of us that love the fine details we can capture out in nature and such might opt for the MF system at that price, just because, but many advanced shooters would still likely go with the smaller system just because they don't want to sacrifice other gear that much when packing for back-country trips and such.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19315270
.
How is that even possible, if most human's eyes can see detail at a rate of 300 pixels per inch?

.

Tom,
I was describing the human eye ability to discern detail not when planted 8-10" away from a 60" print on the wall, but at 60" viewing distance in order to view the entire photo.
If the human eye detects 300ppi at 10", it is only detecting 50ppi at 60". I do acknowledge the propensity of many viewers to get unnaturally close in order to detect 'just how much detail can I see?' And even at that 'unnatural distance' a 60" wide print from only 12MPixels discloses a lot of detail!

If we double the pixel count in each direction, the detail density potential is doubled but the pixel count is 4X...48 Megapixel. If we
increase to 100MPixels, our detail potential (ignoring limits of our lens) has only increased by 2.9X over my modest 12MPixel S110 P&S!
...and we have to stand 'unnaturally close' to appreciate that 2.9X increase in detail content.

As others have pointed out, the limitations of the media which is displaying the source limits us in what we truly can appreciate in the photo, unless we rely upon unnatural levels of digital zoom. Between the limits of the reproducing media and the limits of the human eye, there is a point of diminishing return (vs. cost of photographic gear and the cost of storage).
And even now our monitors and printers and projectors cannot reproduce what our cameras have been able to capture for more than a decade...so what is the need for 100MPixel medium format, and how many ever have that need?!

So let me ask this. 50MP on a 24x36 "full frame" sensor vs 50MP on a larger "medium format" sensor. Ignore file size, camera and lens size and weight, etc. Which one would you like to be using, and why?

chuckmiller wrote in post #19316526
So let me ask this. 50MP on a 24x36 "full frame" sensor vs 50MP on a larger "medium format" sensor. Ignore file size, camera and lens size and weight, etc. Which one would you like to be using, and why?

Yet another 'It depends' response...

1. If the number of line-pairs per picture height is 'the same', the larger individual pixels on the medium format sensor have inherent low noise advantage over smaller FF sensor, just as FF sensor has inherent advantage over APS-C which has advantage over 4/3 format, when all have identical total pixel count.

The above assumes that that larger image circle projected by medium format lens has same total detail resolution content as projected by the smaller image circle FF camera lens.


we assume the same noise processing technology exists for both formats


CCD sensors have some fundamental advantages over CMOS sensors

...since the sensors are both limited to same resolution (50Mpixels)

chuckmiller wrote in post #19316526
So let me ask this. 50MP on a 24x36 "full frame" sensor vs 50MP on a larger "medium format" sensor. Ignore file size, camera and lens size and weight, etc. Which one would you like to be using, and why?

In the vacuum of all other criteria, there's no good reason to have a preference. I don't think this is asking the question you're trying to get an answer to. Possible answers are SOOOOO subjective and dependent on everything from focal length, subject, conditions being used under, physics (size/weight), cost and all of the other things that go into making a photo that there's no, single answer.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19316526
So let me ask this. 50MP on a 24x36 "full frame" sensor vs 50MP on a larger "medium format" sensor. Ignore file size, camera and lens size and weight, etc. Which one would you like to be using, and why?

.
I would greatly prefer 50MP on a "full frame" sensor than 50MP on a medium format sensor.

Why?

Because the size and weight of the lenses on the MF would be preposterous!

My main lens that I use for most of my photography is a Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 zoom. . It weighs 13 pounds and is nearly 2 feet long without the hood. . It is about the biggest, heaviest lens I can possibly manage. . I mean, if it were any longer or heavier I would probably just give up and not do photography anymore. . Yet it is not "too much lens" by any means, as I regularly use it at 800mm and regularly shoot it wide open at f5.6. . Any shorter and it wouldn't meet many of my needs. . Any smaller aperture and it would often fall short of meeting my needs.

So I have established that to get the kinds of photos I want, I often need the field of view provided by 800mm on a full frame, and also need the depth of field provided by f5.6 at 800mm on a full frame.

Now, can you even imagine how freaking long and heavy a lens would be that would provide the same angle of view on a medium format sensor?! . It would be preposterous, and I would be unable to lift or carry such a lens.

Chuck, in reading your posts in this thread, it seems like perhaps you do not realize the enormous increase in size and weight that would be necessary to get the same performance in MF lenses that we get in our FF lenses. . Do you realize what a huge deal this is, or is the enormous size and weight increase something that you underestimated, or forgot to consider?


.

Good points from all.

You could be correct, Tom. Since I have never handled a MF digital sensor camera I am unaware of the coinciding lens sizes and have yet to research such. I assume the image circle required for a MF sensor would mean larger diameter glass. This could mean, I don't know, maybe 200mm focal length MF glass is the upper end of practicality. If so, nearly all photographers who don't need long glass could be the group enjoying MF sensor performance and image quality and we would have a different user market. Put MF sensors in the mainstream 20 years ago right along side full frame sensors and MF everything would be less expensive and more advanced than it is now.