Sony a9 Specs Revealed!
- Thread starter sonicbuffalo_RIP
- Start date
I never thought I would say this but 46mp is just too many pixels ! 36mp is plenty for me.
The 4fps indicates that the internal processing will be challenged. How big will the internal buffer have to be to store the shots before saving to the memory card.
At 36mp the D810 buffer can store 47 shots NEF @ 12bit
https://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-buffer-size
Trading more pixels for reduced speed is not worth it for me.
I wonder if it will have the 5-axis stabilisation like the A7II - thats a game changer as all lenses become stabilised.
If Nikon did that they could really leverage their installed base of lenses and save having to put expensive VR in every lens.
They will have to respond to that.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
You don't really think that Sony will hand out the 46 MP sensor like candy, do you? lol
They did it with 36MP, so they may do it with 46MP.
Sony Fab is producing a lot of high MP sensors, and they have sold the 50MP MF sensor to all.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
They'd be idiots not to. They might, possibly, hold out for a short time but while Sony is the first they won't be the only for very long. And let's face it; the MP race is the single greatest marketing tool digital camera manufacturers have...
Next to customer ignorance anyway.
...
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I'm guessing you're wondering if Sony is playing tech games to get that high number? Like was described earlier in the week where a certain mfg. offsets the sensor with another one on top or something like that to get a higher number of MP's. I'll have to find that post and link to it. DO you know what I'm talking about? If so, I don't think so, as the games/tricks would limit what you could shoot. It was said that you couldn't shoot action shots very well with the tech trick.
rocketman122
Senior Member
we spoke of that years back at nikonians when some mfr (not sure who though maybe sony) had a stabilizer in the camera and we wondered why nikon couldnt just put a vr system in camera. Im definitely interested in the a7II because of this. If they bring the A7sII with stavilizer I may move completely to sony and shoot wedding with them. Im still waiting for more info.
Nikon wont do it because theyre greedy fks. This a truly amazing step forward. Im glad sony are putting the pressure on nikon and canon. They feel too comfortable in their positions but dont say everyone all around them stealing their profits. 3rd party flash, grips, lenses, batteries and even moving to a different mfr.
with video theyve been asleep at the wheel and in the wedding industry its canon driving the momentum with sony and Panasonic In line right after the other. Nikon is not even in race.
I see another bad quarter for them and this will make 7 in a row.
Wake up nikon
i do believe that nikon will get the 46mp sensor but just a bit after
i also believe we will see new glass released that can resolve more from these mp monsters. Sigma art im looking at u!
dammit whens that tamron 15-30 2.8 VC going to get released.
I'm not saying they're using tricks. I'm simply curious how they gain the pixel count and what effect it would have. When I first got my D3300 I was mighty impressed by all those numbers but the more you start reading and comparing, the more you realize that mighty numbers don't necessarily make mighty differences.
Take the D750 vs D810 as an example. This isn't about the one being better than the other. I was (and maybe still am) considering the D810 as a slow cam, low ISO - slow shutter shots like landscape or night. It seemed like the perfect cam for that, 36Mp, 50 native ISO etc. But when checking that what makes the difference like colors and dynamic range, the difference between both is almost trivial. That makes me wonder what the use of pixel count is when it makes such little difference there where it really matters?
In some way it feels like an increase in quantity while not bothering much about quality.
Therefor I'm curious if this new sensor will increase both.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
[MENTION=31330]J-see[/MENTION].....I think you may be referring to image resolution. I think resolution is far more important than MP on a sensor. That's why I've never jumped on a 36 MP camera body. To me, the files are too large, and will slow the shutter speeds down too much to be effective. I think it's great that Sony is getting into that ground, but they have a lot of work to do. Unless you are shooting billboards, I don't think 46 MP is gonna do much for you. Now, if Sony has upped their resolution a ton to go along WITH the higher MP count, then that will be a worthwhile effort. We'll see.
rocketman122
Senior Member
This aint no foveon crap 3rgb layer x4 mp =12mp (not) garbage they were trying to push for years. Or the 6mp interpolated like fuji did with the s3/5
I believe this is straight up 46mp and if anything will stres the hell out of medium format companies and canon since they currently dont have anything over 22mp or is it 23..?
But for medium format its pretty much game over. Even now the 36mp in the nikon is very powerful and very flexible. Mf cant do more than iso 800 without falling apart
I believe this is straight up 46mp and if anything will stres the hell out of medium format companies and canon since they currently dont have anything over 22mp or is it 23..?
But for medium format its pretty much game over. Even now the 36mp in the nikon is very powerful and very flexible. Mf cant do more than iso 800 without falling apart
That's what the MP is all about not? My D3300 is 24Mp: 6000*4000 (and some). My D750 is 24MP, same resolution. The sensor size differs in both and evidently the DR, Color range... etc.
That's what I meant with an increase in MP not necessarily making drastic differences. Two same sized sensors that have a different MP might only imply the one has more of the same than the other.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I think we agree on the basics. Keeping one thing in mind....there are P & S's that have 20 MP and they definitely do NOT have the same resolution as a DSLR with an "in the ballpark" 24 MP's. Hence, MP's aren't always about resolution.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Many people equate resolution (mega pixels) with image sharpness; e.g. more megapixels means sharper photos. I've had salespeople try to tell me this and I've heard it repeated countless times. Nothing wrong with more MP but, IMO, we don't really need more megapixels, we need better sensors (with wider dynamic range) and more powerful processors backing them up.
...
...
Last edited:
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
very true....that's exactly what I tried and failed to say. I was going to say higher dynamic range but figured someone would incorrectly think I was talking about HDR, which I wasn't. Thanks HF for clearing that up.
It's things like the dynamic range that make all the difference indeed. I never paid that much attention to it and it's not that much advertised as the MEGAPIXELS but the dynamic range the cam can grab is way more important.
The first time I took night shots with the D750 and after uploading and processing them, they blew me away. The difference with the D3300 was phenomenal yet strangely, about all settings for the shot and the sensors megapixels were identical. It really made me curious what the reason was. Dynamic range being one. 12.8 vs 14.5 might not seem much of a difference but it can make a massive difference in the shot taken.
If I have the choice between 2EV range or 12 megapixels more for my next cam it's going to be 2EV.
The first time I took night shots with the D750 and after uploading and processing them, they blew me away. The difference with the D3300 was phenomenal yet strangely, about all settings for the shot and the sensors megapixels were identical. It really made me curious what the reason was. Dynamic range being one. 12.8 vs 14.5 might not seem much of a difference but it can make a massive difference in the shot taken.
If I have the choice between 2EV range or 12 megapixels more for my next cam it's going to be 2EV.