In your opinion. If not your opinion is there technological proof of where the sweet spot is...

We probably haven't yet found it. Stay tuned.

Some say big pixels are sweet, other say small pixels are cute. I am in the latter group.

alundeb wrote:
Some say big pixels are sweet, other say small pixels are cute. I am in the latter group.

am easy...i take either one pleasing my eyes

What are you trading off to find a 'sweet-spot'. I'm quite happy anywhere from about 16-20 but I'd emphasize low noise quite strongly.

About 80-100MP.

EBH

The 1D (4mp) was great, the 10D (6mp) was better, the 5D (12mp) was phenominal and the 1DsIII (21mp) is outstanding.

46 will hold me for a while.

Michaelparris wrote:
In your opinion. If not your opinion is there technological proof of where the sweet spot is...

I have no idea. Maybe depends on what you shoot and at what ISO

The 'sweet spot' is always moving depending on technology.
If we ignore tech limits then we can dispatch any talk of sweet spots.

I think Sony could do a decent 60-70mp ff sensor right now.

I think the current 20-24mp FF resolutions are a real sweet spot.

But, for Landscapers to be totally happy you are looking at 60-80MP and 4fps with 15 stop DR at around $3000.

Sneakyracer wrote:
I think the current 20-24mp FF resolutions are a real sweet spot.

But, for Landscapers to be totally happy you are looking at 60-80MP and 4fps with 15 stop DR at around $3000.

If prefer that for $1000 if we are making things up

All things considered, IQ,DR,High ISO shooting....Just as with anything there is an apex where everything is performing at or close to its peek...Just curious as to where some may think that is. There has to be a point where there are too many mp's for that size of sensor and a point where you have not got the most out of it....

Psychic1 wrote:
The 1D (4mp) was great, the 10D (6mp) was better, the 5D (12mp) was phenominal and the 1DsIII (21mp) is outstanding.

46 will hold me for a while.

But at 4mp they were not getting everything they could from the senor......I am thinking somewhere in the 20-30 mp range. After that you start to see better resolution but start to see more noise at higher iso's

RobDickinson wrote:
The 'sweet spot' is always moving depending on technology.
If we ignore tech limits then we can dispatch any talk of sweet spots.

I think Sony could do a decent 60-70mp ff sensor right now.

But with more resolution you will sacrifice the ability to get clean files at higher iso's

Michaelparris wrote:
But with more resolution you will sacrifice the ability to get clean files at higher iso's

Thats a myth. D800 has cleaner high ISO than the D700. There are some slight compromises typically in balancing low ISO abilities and high ISO (1dx is tweaked more for higher ISo than the 5d3 , D4 more than the d800 etc) but we are at a point where that is a choice by the manufacturers rather than a limitation of the tech as such.

I would like a 80Mp sensor for landscape and group shots. For everything else, I would bin the sensor to 20MP. I think that would be ideal.
At 80MP it could be 2-3FPS.
At 20Mp it would be 6+FPS.

RobDickinson wrote:
Michaelparris wrote:
But with more resolution you will sacrifice the ability to get clean files at higher iso's

Thats a myth. D800 has cleaner high ISO than the D700. There are some slight compromises typically in balancing low ISO abilities and high ISO (1dx is tweaked more for higher ISo than the 5d3 , D4 more than the d800 etc) but we are at a point where that is a choice by the manufacturers rather than a limitation of the tech as such.

interesting....

matejphoto wrote:
I would like a 80Mp sensor for landscape and group shots. For everything else, I would bin the sensor to 20MP. I think that would be ideal.
At 80MP it could be 2-3FPS.
At 20Mp it would be 6+FPS.


Do you think we will eventually see an 80 mp FF sensor?

Michaelparris wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Michaelparris wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Some say big pixels are sweet, other say small pixels are cute. I am in the latter group.


Thanks for the well educated idiotic response....

Lighten up

And thanks for your well defined question.

Others seemed to understand it just fine....I stand by my response to your post

Ok. I understand the question. And my answer is the same as everybody else:
Between 20 and 100 MP, and it depends on a lot of things you have not specified.

Michaelparris wrote:
matejphoto wrote:
I would like a 80Mp sensor for landscape and group shots. For everything else, I would bin the sensor to 20MP. I think that would be ideal.
At 80MP it could be 2-3FPS.
At 20Mp it would be 6+FPS.


Do you think we will eventually see an 80 mp FF sensor?

Why wouldn't we? My first camera was 1.6 mp.

Are you looking for the 'sweet spot' right now or at some point in the future? Technology will inevitably move forward and what is the best right now will not be the best a year or two from now.