# Sony releases the NEX-7 compact camera with *24MP* sensor!



## editor (Aug 25, 2011)

The pixel count is ludicrously over the top but this looks rather a splendid camera:













24.3 effective megapixels Exmor APS HD CMOS sensor
Quick, responsive autofocus and world’s fastest (0.02 sec) release time lag
Quick, versatile new TRINAVI control
High-resolution XGA OLED Tru-Finder™ and built-in flash
Full HD Movie with 50p/25p, manual focus, full P/A/S/M exposure control and improved audio
10fps continuous shooting (Speed priority mode)
It's going to cost over a grand...
Full specs'n'schizzle here: 
http://www.wirefresh.com/sony-nex-7...top-in-the-megapixel-war-pics-and-full-specs/


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2011)

I _really_ want to have a play with one of these.

It's what I've been waiting for Sony to do with the NEX system and could tempt me away from m4/3 for use with my Canon FD manual focus lenses (especially with their 'focus peaking' focus confirmation system).

N.B. XGA EVF = 1024 x 768 pixels


----------



## pogofish (Aug 31, 2011)

I think I was having a play with that or a very similar model (There were 2) last week.

Didn't feel very comfortable to me.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2011)

The shape is well odd.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 31, 2011)

That is a bombshell amongst the top end compact cameras. While it is expensive I wonder if it will displace some of the dSLR market. Oh dear, my LX3 seems to be an inadequate package compared to this. I cannot afford the new Sony, and I have bought accessories for my Lumix which cost me deep in the purse. Will the new Sony produce better images, or is it just sales hype, based on a high pixel count, which sometimes reduces resolution rather than increasing it.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2011)

editor said:


> The shape is well odd.




I dunno. Looks pretty purposeful to me.

Decent enough grip on the right with all the rear controls that matter within easy reach of your thumb.

Viewfinder over on the far left allows you to keep both eyes open - rangefinder style.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 31, 2011)

Its also very small - Not much bigger than many compacts. The controls were tight and difficult to operate, even for my fairly dainty hands.

Mind you, I'm also left handed and that does not help the intuitive side of things with cameras.

Beautiful build quality though, not heavy but felt substantial enough to imply quality.

The other model with the pancake lens was also quite nice.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

editor said:


> The pixel count is ludicrously over the top but this looks rather a splendid camera...



I don't think pixel count can ever be considered OTT. It's photography - it records reality. The closer we get to human visual perception the better (considered to be equivalent to 50 dpi).

I can't find any info' about dedicated prime lenses. If it came with a prime standard I would buy. It looks to be an incredibly versatile little camera. Potentially as good in studio as out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

give it 18 months and i bet you'll be able to get 24MP cameras for £500.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I don't think pixel count can ever be considered OTT. It's photography - it records reality. The closer we get to human visual perception the better (considered to be equivalent to 50 dpi).



Oh, I am quite happy with 6mp I don't really see the need for much more than that.
I can shoot 12mp but the quality of the resulting print does not seem to be any better.


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I don't think pixel count can ever be considered OTT. It's photography - it records reality. The closer we get to human visual perception the better (considered to be equivalent to 50 dpi).


Here's a man who really knows what he's talking about:


> Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.
> 
> Sharpness depends more on your photographic skill than the number of megapixels, because most people's sloppy technique or subject motion blurs the image more than the width of a microscopic pixel.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2011)

And here's a real world test about megapixels:



> On the show, we did a test. We blew up a photograph to 16 x 24 inches at a professional photo lab. One print had 13-megapixel resolution; one had 8; the third had 5. Same exact photo, down-rezzed twice, all three printed at the same poster size. I wanted to hang them all on a wall in Times Square and challenge passersby to see if they could tell the difference.
> 
> Even the technician at the photo lab told me that I was crazy, that there’d be a huge difference between 5 megapixels and 13.
> I’m prepared to give away the punch line of this segment, because hey—the show doesn’t air till February, and you’ll have forgotten all about what you read here today, right?
> ...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Here's a man who really knows what he's talking about:



All well and good in a world of print where we view small prints close-up and big posters from a distance. But, it's bollocks if we're talking about creating a print as close to representing human visual perception as possible.

The second article better explains why both arguments are fundamentally flawed: output resolution.

Fuck the self-proclaiming professional experts you quote. I know my stuff


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Fuck the self-proclaiming professional experts you quote. I know my stuff


Sorry, but Ken Rockwell is a fucking legend, and I know whose opinion I rate the highest here.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Sorry, but Ken Rockwell is a fucking legend, and I know whose opinion I rate the highest here.



Have to say ed, Ken Rockwell in my experience is a bit like Marmite, there are those who love him and then there are others iyswim


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Sorry, but Ken Rockwell is a fucking legend, and I know whose opinion I rate the highest here.



Legends can be wrong. They can even be bought.

Photography is a very powerful medium because it replicates a reality. The technology as it stands today is nowhere near true human visual perception. Output is the most limiting factor ATM, but input (in quantity of information) will be improved also.

Try this...

Take a coin from your pocket and study it in detail under a bright light. Look at every last detail. Every scratch. Wonder about the history of that coin. How many pockets and purses it has been in. How many hands it has passed through. Look at the size of it. Then try and tell me you can reproduce an actual size print, or screen image with as much information in it.

The articles you posted above both refer to technology as it stands today, but you as much as anyone knows how rapidly technology is changing.

A camera that captures Twice as much information is better placed for the day when output technology can match input.

Speaking from an artists perspective; photography as a medium is all about reality. The closer we get to the reality we perceive the better.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> ...
> Speaking from an artists perspective; photography as a medium is all about reality. The closer we get to the reality we perceive the better.



Ok, that is a way of seeing it, for me photography is about creating attractive images - not necessarily representing any kind of reality.


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Speaking from an artists perspective; photography as a medium is all about reality. The closer we get to the reality we perceive the better.


That's frankly rubbish.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Ok, that is a way of seeing it, for me photography is about creating attractive images - not necessarily representing any kind of reality.



Fair enough. Each to their own etc, but my desire is for more reality.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

editor said:


> That's frankly rubbish.



Again. Fair enough. Each to their own, but for me photography is about capturing and reproducing a reality. That is why it is such a powerful medium. That is the interest I have in photography as an artist.

Painting, sketching, sculpture etc all get interpreted by my own mind and ability to communicate my thoughts in physical terms. Photography by-passes my own sentiment to a great extent. It's why everyone can relate to a photograph, but not everyone can relate to a Picasso painting.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

editor said:


> That's frankly rubbish.



Oh. And, that was rubbish post  Care to expand a little?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Fair enough. Each to their own etc, but my desire is for more reality.



Some of my favourite photos are mainly blur of some kind


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Oh. And, that was rubbish post  Care to expand a little?


Some of the greatest photographs ever taken would fall far short of your rather singular criteria of what "photography as a medium is all about."


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Some of the greatest photographs ever taken would fall far short of your rather singular criteria of what "photography as a medium is all about."



I don't think it's my own singular criteria. Plenty of people have written about photography as a representation of reality. Plenty of people refer to photography as 'The Defining Art Form of the 20th Century'.

Of course, photography as a medium has been used to reflect imagination also. Manipulation of all sorts have been there from day One. Man Ray is in the books, and his work is all about manipulation. But, it's about manipulating a truth. A physical representation of a physical reality. A continuous relationship with the science of light from start to finish. Fundamentally, this is what photography is. Post an example of what you think is a 'great photograph' and then try to explain how it is not representing a reality. There are plenty.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2011)

I have heard it said that photography is about the art of exclusion and painting about the art of inclusion.

I know someone who is into record photography, his camera is levelled on spirit levels and his aim is to show reality, he already has I think as much resolution in his plate camera as he needs.

This guy..


----------



## paolo (Sep 4, 2011)

The one upside to bigger mp is the ability to crop.

That said, it's not much use without decent glass.

Glass is everything to me. A good lens on an old 6mp DSLR will kick arse over a fancy new DSLR running 'kit' stuff.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I have heard it said that photography is about the art of exclusion and painting about the art of inclusion.
> 
> I know someone who is into record photography, his camera is levelled on spirit levels and his aim is to show reality, he already has I think as much resolution in his plate camera as he needs.
> 
> ...



Yes, that was as good as film got commercially speaking. There were much larger plate cameras, but they were commercially impracticle.

It is still capable of producing results far closer to human perceived reality than commercially available digital cameras today.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> The one upside to bigger mp is the ability to crop.
> 
> That said, it's not much use without decent glass.
> 
> Glass is everything to me. A good lens on an old 6mp DSLR will kick arse over a fancy new DSLR running 'kit' stuff.



As a total lens snob I agree. The best lens I ever owned can be bought for about €30 new on ebay.

Cropping images at a high resolution is always going to find the faults in a lens. However, without exception, the centre of a lens is always the sharpest area. If you crop 50% and sacrifice half your pixel capture you would get a better image to print at say A4. But, it will still by a long way from what wee see as reality.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> .. It is still capable of producing results far closer to human perceived reality than commercially available digital cameras today.



But Stanley this interests me because I think it may be about perceptions as much as about reality.

When I look at a scene with my eyes, perhaps a jumble of people, I focus on the person I am looking at and the rest of the scene is just not really registered by my brain. That and the fact that the lenses in my eyes are focussing on the target.

I could argue that what I am seeing is like someone focussing on a target with a 70-200 @ f2.8 such that everything else is a blur.

However if you look at the resulting photo it will only represent reality if the viewer focusses on the photographer's intended focus point.

My friend with the plate camera makes massive prints and you can look at any point on the print and find sharp in focus detail. But our eyes will still do this thing of focussing on the key details and abandonning the rest to periphery.

So which is more reality in a photograph: 1) sharp focus in one point as they eye does or 2) everything in focus so the eye can wander?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 4, 2011)

It's important not to underestimate how much information we take in from peripheral vision.

We do focus on critical areas at a very rapid, and powerful zoom rate. But, what we 'see' in the periphery puts many other visual cues into context.

When you view your friends LF prints up close you may feel as though you are only able to focus on a small area, but your brain is actually 'processing' (ignore the computer analogy) the whole picture.

To go back to my previous post: study that coin. Yes, sure, your eyes are zooming in and putting the vast majority of attention on a very small part of the whole picture. My point remains - do you know of any camera/printer combination today that is capable of reproducing such fine information at 100% scale? So, we strive to move forward. The more convincing photography is as a record of reality, the more powerful it is as a visual communication medium.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> ... The more convincing photography is as a record of reality, the more powerful it is as a visual communication medium.



And yet. My middle aged female model wants an artistic soft focus look which does not show any of her blemishes such that my detailed images of her are just not pleasing because any and all imperfections are detailed sharp and in focus


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> And yet. My middle aged female model wants an artistic soft focus look which does not show any of her blemishes such that my detailed images of her are just not pleasing because any and all imperfections are detailed sharp and in focus



Exactly.

Yet, if it was a painting it wouldn't be real! Your client wants something with a fundamental basis in reality, but a reality through rose tinted glasses. You aren't fooled. Your client isn't really fooled. Very few viewers will be completely fooled. It's just one use of the medium to portray a reality.

It's not a use that interests me as an artist. I want the reality (however, I edit it in the viewfinder) to be complete - warts and all. The closer I can get to that the better. Therefore, I am happy that technology is progressing.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Plenty of people have written about photography as a representation of reality.


Of the _photographer's_ reality. How a picture is framed, focussed and taken represents the photographers take on what he is seeing. There is no universal reality because each photographer sees things differently and there work reflects that.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It's not a use that interests me as an artist. I want the reality (however, I edit it in the viewfinder) to be complete - warts and all. The closer I can get to that the better. Therefore, I am happy that technology is progressing.


Again, some of the greatest photographers ever taken fall far short of technical perfection and they are all the more powerful for it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Again, some of the greatest photographers ever taken fall far short of technical perfection and they are all the more powerful for it.



Yes. This isn't the point I'm making. All I'm saying is that photographs taken today on a camera with a 24mp sensor will produce far better output quality (more real looking) in the future when print technology, or screen technology catch up than 6mp files. It's very likley that screens will be produced with extremely high definition at large format at some point in the future.

It is the viewers belief that photograohy reflects the real World which makes the medium so powerful regardless of technical perfections. Even when images have been created to produce a very obvious unreality, it is still the fundamental belief in photography as a true recording that is the basis of the joke, or visual trick.

There are plenty of great photographs which are technically shit. Some are full of drama. Some just capture a moment. They all share one principle: they're presented as a recording of a reality.

There are many styles and genres of photography. Documenting the real World and presenting it as art is what interests me most. I believe more pixels will help me improve results in a way I want to present them.

If pixel count really doesn't make a difference like Ken says, why are pro photographers shooting on 36mp cameras? Why have camera manufacturers with huge R&D budgets built the cameras?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 5, 2011)

Pixel _quality_ seems to be more important.

There's trivially little difference between a D200 sensor and a D700 sensor in terms of pixel count, 10 meg vs 12 meg, but a very striking difference in what it does e.g. with oblique light on a roughcast white wall.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Pixel _quality_ seems to be more important.
> 
> There's trivially little difference between a D200 sensor and a D700 sensor in terms of pixel count, 10 meg vs 12 meg, but a very striking difference in what it does e.g. with oblique light on a roughcast white wall.



Pixel quality is important. No reason why a 24mp sensor with the same quality of pixel won't out perform a 12mp sensor in terms of output.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yes. This isn't the point I'm making. All I'm saying is that photographs taken today on a camera with a 24mp sensor will produce far better output quality (more real looking) in the future when print technology, or screen technology catch up than 6mp files. It's very likley that screens will be produced with extremely high definition at large format at some point in the future.


"Better output quality" and "more real looking" (whatever that means) doesn't necessarily equate to 'better photos'. A picture doesn't automatically become better because it is output at a higher resolution.

The skill of documentary photography is not reflected by the megapixel count of an image - it's about what the photographer _captures_.

Case in point is Capa's Spanish Civil War photo, often hailed as the greatest war photograph of all time:




Would that shot become more powerful if it had been snapped on a zillion megapixel camera?
Of course not. The roughness of the image and the immediacy of the format forms part of the story.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 5, 2011)

There is a reasonably possability that if the 24megapixel sensor is a small one then it might not handle noise very well at medium to high iso levels, as compared to some of the fat large sensors in a fullframe dslr camera. Personally I would rather have a 10megapixel camera that could handle noise well at higher iso levels.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Kippa said:


> There is a reasonably posability that if the 24megapixel sensor is a small one then it might not handle noise very well at medium to high iso levels, as compared to some of the fat large sensors in a fullframe dslr camera. Personally I would rather have a 10megapixel camera that could handle noise well at higher iso levels.


The whole 'megapixel war' promoted by manufacturers is pretty pointless when it comes to tiny sensors on compact cameras.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> The whole 'megapixel war' promoted by manufacturers is pretty pointless when it comes to tiny sensors on compact cameras.



Jesus wept. Why are you trying to argue that 1+1 doesn't equal 2?

Where have I said higher definition makes better photographs? All I have said is that, for me, the way I value photography as a record of a reality, the closer we get to human visual perception the more real and more powerful the medium in the way I us it.

I want more pixels in a compact in the same way I used to use 25, or 50 ASA high resolution Agfa films in 35mm film cameras. It took years for manufacturers to develop those and get them right, but there was a demand to be filled. As there is with digital compacts. I want higher, better definition in a small package. It's achievable.
All of the arguments here are assuming technology stands still. There is absolutely no reason to assume that. More, it's far more likley (a certainty) that technology will continue to advance as it always has done.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> All I have said is that, for me, the way I value photography as a record of a reality, the closer we get to human visual perception the more real and more powerful the medium in the way I us it.


So you're of the opinion that "human visual perception " some sort of universal human constant then?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> So you're of the opinion that "human visual perception " some sort of universal human constant then?



Generally yes. Of course, there are always excpetions to 'universal' rules. It's a relative thing I guess. The final photograph should be as close to the individuals original perception of the reality as possible.

If the final photograph simply mirrors what was seen, then the visual level of the individual is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Generally yes. Of course, there are always excpetions to 'universal' rules. It's a relative thing I guess. The final photograph should be as close to the individuals original perception of the reality as possible.


Except one person's super detailed mega-mega pixel masterpiece is another's soulless technical exercise.

Good artistic photography should never boil down to how convincing it is as a "record of reality." Some great pictures have been taken on cameraphones.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Except one person's super detailed mega-mega pixel masterpiece is another's soulless technical exercise.
> 
> Good artistic photography should never boil down to how convincing it is as a "record of reality." Some great pictures have been taken on cameraphones.



This isn't what I am saying. I have already said there are many styles and genres of photography. The genre I am most interested in will benefit from a closer representation of the reality of the subject. It is subjective. Always will be. However, the fundamental principal of photography as a medium - the single principle we all relate to, is the fact that it records 'a reality', an actual event, a moment in time, a real object in a real space. this is what photography is about. It is why it is a very powerful medium.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 5, 2011)

I tend to find that most of the time is spent post processing removing detail not adding it in as a whole most shopped shots are about exclusion of detail and you'd be hard pressed to find many commercial images which haven't had a significant amount of post processing to remove details.  So the clarity argument is a nonsense.  Also look at any of the Calotype shot photos of the turn of the centry they are all taken on what would be lower quality film stock and lens manufacture and yet they are just as impressive as modern shots.

Mostly what makes a decent shot is that which doesn't show or isn't in focus it's these which give the visual narrative to a shot which informs the viewer and defines the image.

The one area where MP count is relevant is low light high ISO where the grain/noise is less pronounced over larger MP counts as the pixels are smaller but if you're shooting in daylight conditions or with lighting then this isn't a factor.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 5, 2011)

oh and photographs don't record reality, they record perception, that of the photographers composition.  A photographer may never lie but the photographer will


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ...
> Mostly what makes a decent shot is that which doesn't show or isn't in focus it's these which give the visual narrative to a shot which informs the viewer and defines the image...



This is a diversion, but an interesting one.

As a recorded archive medium photography pretty much replaced painting. Before photography the skills of an artist were judged on the way they could best reproduce a real scene. As printing and photography took over, artists started to look at more self-expressive forms and styles. Photography even influenced composotion with traditional rules being ignored.

So, now we are seing photography being replaced by video as the first choice for recording archive material, and so photographers are trying be more self-expressive with their medium?

It's a question. Not necessarily my own point of view.

..............

As for your own point about 'less is more' and removing information, that is invaluable in advertising where the immediate impact of an image is important. But, for a photograph on my living room wall, I want as much information as possible.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 5, 2011)

I don't think you do though, the best shots are ones with decent bokeh in them with vignetting with speed/motion blur.

Most artistic shots are all about the blur not the detail.

Don't foget a lot of the early plate images were suitably touched up and repainted afterward hence all the publishing photos having that hard air brushed look in the 1950's to 1970's.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The genre I am most interested in will benefit from a closer representation of the reality of the subject.


Could you post up some examples?


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> As for your own point about 'less is more' and removing information, that is invaluable in advertising where the immediate impact of an image is important. But, for a photograph on my living room wall, I want as much information as possible.


So if you have a portrait of someone on your wall, you'd prefer the image to have all the distracting background detail to be displayed in super high-res detail too?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> So if you have a portrait of someone on your wall, you'd prefer the image to have all the distracting background detail to be displayed in super high-res detail too?



Sort of. I wouldn't have a portrait on my wall, but a landscape with all details - yes. The art of a good landscape photographer is to order the detail in a way that doesn't confuse. Nothing is edited out (within the viewfinder).


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Could you post up some examples?



There's some Thomas Struth examples in the thread in 'Photography'. The 'Post links to Photographers you Appreciate'. Johnny Canuck posted the first Thomas Struth example. I added some of his early work and a later shot.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

Screen images don't do them justice. They really need to be seen in the flesh.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2011)

And yet within landscape photography there are people who want a faithful record shot usually in even lighting and others who want dramatic lighting and more surreal visuals.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2011)

I think what we are discussing is what our personal preferences in photography are.

Some people like to so such and such - for which a particular camera lens combination is most suitable and another person likes to do that and that for which a different camera lens combination is more suitable.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 5, 2011)

I don't know that its entirely preference; eg Stanley's loving the detail concept isn't really borne out by anything which has be held up as being classic in the artistic or commercial photographer circles for the last 100 years.  Largely, accepted, because that level of granular detail was never possible without digital kit.

I also accept that a good F8 or F22 will in some cases have a greater impact that a close cropped focus of an f1.2 but most of the time it's all about the bokeh and the blur, and that's not a style issue it's actually about the manner in which til the even of modern digital photography, photogrpahy was taught and the accepted manner of doing it what you needed to do within the art form to produce the shot.

It used to be these are the rules of a good photo (which is still true when editing down) the would apply to the size, focus, composition light levels, film speed, aperture, shutter speed, film stock and paper...

As much as anything these were all trade offs, IE if you chose a high speed film you know the detail would be lacking ie it'd be more blurred and grainy than a lower ASA  that was the trade off you made to get the balance and grab that shot...

again all technical limitations rather than style preference.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 5, 2011)

to pull this back on track this looks like sony's micro 3/4 offering really...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think what we are discussing is what our personal preferences in photography are...



Seems we have deviated somehow. The original discussion was about the value of 24mp sensors compared to say a 12mp sensor. Some people seem to think there is no point in going beyond 12mp. I think there is.

Not sure how we deviated


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2011)

Well, at the moment I produce prints up to 10x15inch and web images usually just 600x400px sometimes 800x533px .. the 6mp output level of my camera seems adequate for that.

However if I was shooting professionally for an ad agency for example to be used on large billboards and the like I would want as many mega pixels as I could get my hands on.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ...
> However if I was shooting professionally for an ad agency for example to be used on large billboards and the like I would want as many mega pixels as I could get my hands on.



This where you are wrong and Mr Rockwell is right. The viewing distance makes all the difference. From 50ft away a pixel could be as big as an inch and it wouldn't really matter.

Where it does matter is in an environment where you are viewing a 3 Meter x 2 Meter print at close proximity. Or, who knows? In the future screen resolution may get as good 1000dpi on 30 inch screens!!!


----------



## Kippa (Sep 5, 2011)

To be honest most cameras today produce reasonable to good quality photos.  I can't see what major changes can be made in the future to digital photography.  There will always be "new" features that camrea producers bring out, so the public will upgrade and buy the new one, but to be honest talking about the fundamentals I can't see there being a huge change in the near future.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

Kippa said:


> ...but to be honest talking about the fundamentals I can't see there being a huge change in the near future.



This thread is a discussion about a compact digital camera with a 24mp sensor. That's a very fast leap from 12mp. Things are changing quickly. Scientifically speaking, that's a big change in the fundamentals.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> This thread is a discussion about a compact digital camera with a 24mp sensor. That's a very fast leap from 12mp. Things are changing quickly. Scientifically speaking, that's a big change in the fundamentals.


Well there's more megapixels on offer, but that doesn't always equate to "better pictures."


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Well there's more megapixels on offer, but that doesn't always equate to "better pictures."



Of course not. I'm never one to claim penis extensions are good value either.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2011)

So, a 24mp image, assuming 3x2 aspect ratio what pixels dimension is the image?

And I wonder what the filesizes will be.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, a 24mp image, assuming 3x2 aspect ratio what pixels dimension is the image?
> 
> And I wonder what the filesizes will be.



Roughly Twice the size of a 12mp file at 3x2.

That's my guess anyway.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Roughly Twice the size of a 12mp file at 3x2.
> That's my guess anyway.



No I don't think so, the maths does not work that way.

My camera can output both 6mp or 12mp, you might think the 12mp file might have twice the dimensions but it does not, it has twice the area in pixels but that is not twice the dimension in height and width. In fact when viewed the 12mp image is not as much larger than the 6mp as one might expect.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> No I don't think so, the maths does not work that way.
> 
> My camera can output both 6mp or 12mp, you might think the 12mp file might have twice the dimensions but it does not, it has twice the area in pixels but that is not twice the dimension in height and width. In fact when viewed the 12mp image is not as much larger than the 6mp as one might expect.



This is complicated stuff! Think I'm going to bed.

File compression can confuse everyone.


----------



## Xanadu (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, a 24mp image, assuming 3x2 aspect ratio what pixels dimension is the image?
> 
> And I wonder what the filesizes will be.



Pixel dimensions:
area = width * height
3x * 2x = 24000000
24000000 /3 / 2 = x*x
x*x = 400000
x=2000

So, 3x by 2x is
6000 by 4000

File size in RAW:
24000000 pixels * (36bits per pixel) / 8 bits per byte / 1024 bytes per kilobyte / 1024 kilobytes per megabyte
= 102.997 MiB
That's assuming ideal situation with no information other than bitmap info, no compression and a packed numeric format for storing pixel colours.


----------



## Xanadu (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> No I don't think so, the maths does not work that way.
> 
> My camera can output both 6mp or 12mp, you might think the 12mp file might have twice the dimensions but it does not, it has twice the area in pixels but that is not twice the dimension in height and width. In fact when viewed the 12mp image is not as much larger than the 6mp as one might expect.



He's right, the file size is twice the size.  But the width and height are not twice the original.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

Hi Xanadu, you may be awkward but your maths is masterful 
I am kicking myself because I should have been able to do that, I guess I was just lazy.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> My camera can output both 6mp or 12mp, you might think the 12mp file might have twice the dimensions but it does not, it has twice the area in pixels but that is not twice the dimension in height and width. In fact when viewed the 12mp image is not as much larger than the 6mp as one might expect.



Yep, the width and height are approximately 1.4x bigger (a factor of the square root of 2 to be precise) each time you double the number of pixels, assuming the same aspect ratio.

Doubling the lengths of the sides results in a fourfold increase in area.

For a 3:2 Aspect ratio

6 Mpx - 3000 x 2000

12 Mpx - 4242 x 2828

24 Mpx = 6000 x 4000


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

Interesting that a 24mp image is double the height and width of a 6mp image.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 6, 2011)

Basic geometry




			
				cybertect said:
			
		

> Doubling the lengths of the sides results in a fourfold increase in area.



is true of all area calculations.

The Mpx size is simply an expression of area.

If we had a circular film format instead of rectangular, then doubling the radius of the circle would make the area four times bigger.

Similarly, volume increases by the cube of the dimensions.

A 2 x 2 x 2 cube is eight times bigger than a 1 x 1 cube.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 7, 2011)

Xanadu, that was a very neat explanatory post.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2011)

The first hands-on review is in and it's a *rave* one: http://www.wirefresh.com/sony-nex-7-24mp-camera-picks-up-rave-first-review/


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2011)

Well it looks fabulous and very desirable with its enormous range of features. On paper it outclasses all of its rivals in most areas of performance and function. However it is predicted to cost $1,200 which if that gets translated (as so often is the case) directly into UK Pounds then it is going to be out of the reach of a lot of people for whom a camera is just another piece of technical kit. Also that price is for the body only. The kit lens will just about double the price.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2011)

I like the idea of a small, compact, hugely capable camera, but I'd want to see how good the EVF is before considering it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2011)

Well the camera body might be small and compact, but the lenses are very wide because of the large sensor size. That is how they get the quality of image of course.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well the camera body might be small and compact, but the lenses are very wide because of the large sensor size. That is how they get the quality of image of course.


Sure, but they're still going to be lighter and smaller than a thumping dSLR.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2012)

I get the idea that the success of these things as platforms for old lenses is coming as a bit of a surprise to Sony, as are the success of the Olympus and Fuji "retro-cameras" to the whole electronics industry.

So Mr Sony, here's a suggestion. You're already working with Zeiss to make lenses right? So take the guts of the NEX 7 and stick them in one of these:







http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/zeiss-.html


----------

