Geoff D F wrote:
The problem as I have previously pointed out in moving to a sensor that almost no one needs is it will add to costs for those who want to upgrade and we will likely lose the option of being able to purchase 100mp bodies, just as we can no longer purchase new 50mp GFX bodies.
It is like a car manufacturer moving to offering a V8 engine only. Sure some might want it but not a great move if the vast majority of previous buyers would prefer a six cylinder.
I expect that the cost of a 180MP sensor GFX in a model configuration comparable to current models (say a GFX100xII) will likely be about the same (or slightly less) in inflation-adjusted dollars as the current 100MP model at its introduction. That's virtually always the case with new camera models.
And, of course, those who want a 100MP version will be able to get great deals on the discontinued models. And those who already have a 100MP GFX and like it won't have to upgrade.
As to the car analogy, I think it is more like a manufacturer taking their standard engine from the previous model — which worked pretty darned well — and making it more fuel efficient and increasing its power output a bit. (If your analogy worked here, it would have applied equally to the 50MP to 100MP upgrade, which was an even larger percentage increase.)
As I wrote earlier, I agree that very few people "need" a 180MP sensor, just as I would agree that very few people need a 100MP miniMF sensor. But some do, and progress marches on, so if it is available it will happen and some will find value in it.
- - -
Someone earlier wrote that we have reached a "plateau." I understand the sentiment, but if I had $1000 for every time that people thought we had achieved a plateau in sensor resolution... I'd have enough money to buy a GFX and a half dozen lenses for it by now!
(Remember when 12MP Canon 5D sensors were almost beyond belief? And no one could imagine why we'd ever need 20MP or more? And you'd have been laughed at if you proposed a 50MP or 60MP FF sensor camera? )
180MP MF = 75–85 MP full-frame
So I 'm hoping for 80MP FF camera body from Sony
Could well be half stacked sensor
May well happen in 2026
Baited breath :-)
Feb 08, 2026 at 05:26 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
deevee wrote:
180MP MF = 75–85 MP full-frame
So I 'm hoping for 80MP FF camera body from Sony
Could well be half stacked sensor
May well happen in 2026
Baited breath :-)
There is a rumor on the Sony board that the Sony A7r VI will have an 80mm fully stacked sensor with about 1/80 sensor scan speed. That is only as fast as half stacked sensors, but the claim is it will be fully stacked. We'll see.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I expect that the cost of a 180MP sensor GFX in a model configuration comparable to current models (say a GFX100xII) will likely be about the same (or slightly less) in inflation-adjusted dollars as the current 100MP model at its introduction. That's virtually always the case with new camera models.
And, of course, those who want a 100MP version will be able to get great deals on the discontinued models. And those who already have a 100MP GFX and like it won't have to upgrade.
As to the car analogy, I think it is more like a manufacturer taking their standard engine from the previous model — which worked pretty darned well — and making it more fuel efficient and increasing its power output a bit. (If your analogy worked here, it would have applied equally to the 50MP to 100MP upgrade, which was an even larger percentage increase.)
As I wrote earlier, I agree that very few people "need" a 180MP sensor, just as I would agree that very few people need a 100MP miniMF sensor. But some do, and progress marches on, so if it is available it will happen and some will find value in it.
- - -
Someone earlier wrote that we have reached a "plateau." I understand the sentiment, but if I had $1000 for every time that people thought we had achieved a plateau in sensor resolution... I'd have enough money to buy a GFX and a half dozen lenses for it by now!
(Remember when 12MP Canon 5D sensors were almost beyond belief? And no one could imagine why we'd ever need 20MP or more? And you'd have been laughed at if you proposed a 50MP or 60MP FF sensor camera? )...Show more →
I had a 5D back in the day. I never thought it was beyond belief. When the world moved to 24mp I wanted that. I wanted the jump to 40-50mp too. Having 50mp, I don't need any more. I might move to the 100mp sensor when storage costs and processors catch up a bit but only to get phase detect AF.
All these "problems" are easily solved: Implement smaller raw formats.
But that won't happen because Fuji have no idea of what the customers think.
I don't even want 50 mpix. 100 is waaaay too much and 180 is just silly. But I will of course not claim that no one else needs it just because I don't.
Geoff D F wrote:
I had a 5D back in the day. I never thought it was beyond belief. When the world moved to 24mp I wanted that. I wanted the jump to 40-50mp too. Having 50mp, I don't need any more. I might move to the 100mp sensor when storage costs and processors catch up a bit but only to get phase detect AF.
:-)
You are actually making my point about the general market — even if you now personally feel that whatever you use today is enough for you. :-)
- - -
Makten wrote:
All these "problems" are easily solved: Implement smaller raw formats.
But that won't happen because Fuji have no idea of what the customers think.
I don't even want 50 mpix. 100 is waaaay too much and 180 is just silly. But I will of course not claim that no one else needs it just because I don't.
Fair enough.
As I wrote earlier, I think that very, very few people “need” these super high resolution sensors, just a I think that very, very few people “need”:
For me, the biggest change going from 50 to 100Mp Gfx was in cropping. Of course I try to compose the photo I want without it. But sometimes you don't have close enough MFD or long enough reach. As resolution goes up, so does the ability to crop. At some point, its going to be limited by optics but it doesn't seem we are there yet. Maybe with 180Mp, we will see the point where the image runs out of optical resolution before sensor resolution, but we aren't there yet. I guess that is the practical limit of resolution, when your optics are the limiting factor.
Imagine if you will, a 180mp Fuji GFX camera with 3 small-ish but really excellent primes; a 55/1.7, a 23/4 and say a 105/2.8 with some close focus capability. You could crop those to 2x and still have 45mp to play with, effectively covering the entire focal range from 23mm to 210mm, and all of it fit in a fairly small shoulder bag and didn’t weigh much more than a 40mp APSC 3-zoom system. Make sure it has good AF and give it a retro look, and you might just sell a slew of them, especially to creative minimalists... Just sayin. Not only that, one could easily add a few heavier zooms or primes for the occasions they needed longer, shorter or faster. Lots of options.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Imagine if you will, a 180mp Fuji GFX camera with 3 small-ish but really excellent primes; a 55/1.7, a 23/4 and say a 105/2.8 with some close focus capability. You could crop those to 2x and still have 45mp to play with, effectively covering the entire focal range from 23mm to 210mm, and all of it fit in a fairly small shoulder bag and didn’t weigh much more than a 40mp APSC 3-zoom system. Make sure it has good AF and give it a retro look, and you might just sell a slew of them, especially to creative minimalists... Just sayin. Not only that, one could easily add a few heavier zooms or primes for the occasions they needed longer, shorter or faster. Lots of options. ...Show more →
Jack, as a counterpoint to that idea…
If you are happy with a 2X crop, would it not make as much sense to get a MFT camera with a small zoom covering that range, or even with at least one small prime with a large aperture? You’d get the quality level that you regard as useful, in a package that is a lot smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Jack, as a counterpoint to that idea…
If you are happy with a 2X crop, would it not make as much sense to get a MFT camera with a small zoom covering that range, or even with at least one small prime with a large aperture? You’d get the quality level that you regard as useful, in a package that is a lot smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
Clearly you've never shot M43. Frankly IMHO it 'aint worth bothering assuming you already own a cell phone. Meaning no way you'd come even close in quality to a 2x crop of Fuji GF, even with the 100mp sensor for a net of 25mp... Moreover in my above example, it's the je ne sais quoi of shooting with primes. And with a camera that fits my hands.
Will I be a buyer? No. In fact I am almost at the point of leaving photography altogether -- other than my cell phone.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Clearly you've never shot M43. Frankly IMHO it 'aint worth bothering assuming you already own a cell phone. Meaning no way you'd come even close in quality to a 2x crop of Fuji GF, even with the 100mp sensor for a net of 25mp... Moreover in my above example, it's the je ne sais quoi of shooting with primes. And with a camera that fits my hands.
Will I be a buyer? No. In fact I am almost at the point of leaving photography altogether -- other than my cell phone.
Jack,
I mentioned MFT because you mentioned a 2x crop... thinking that MFT might be a 2x crop relative to miniMF. But now that I think about it, I should have used APS-C instead, since I think its crop ratio relative to miniMF is roughly 2x... though with a different aspect ratio.
So, I guess the actual thrust of my question is format independent: If one is satisfied with the quality produced by a smaller format, rather than cropping the files from the larger and more expensive miniMF system to that format's size, wouldn't it make as much sense to just use the smaller format with its less expensive, smaller, and lighter camera and lenses?
(You are right that I have not used MFT myself. My evaluation of the format comes from the work that a close friend and fellow photographer does with the format, in work that has been exhibited alongside my own.)
I get what you are suggesting, Dan. But you have a system you love for its core capability, extending is usefulness with cropping is very different that configuring a different system that covers the entire focal length without cropping. Like in Jack's example using the GF55/1.7. If you love that lens as I do and don't find its match in APSC, you probably wouldn't give it up to have a smaller telephoto that you use far less.
I mentioned MFT because you mentioned a 2x crop... thinking that MFT might be a 2x crop relative to miniMF. But now that I think about it, I should have used APS-C instead, since I think its crop ratio relative to miniMF is roughly 2x... though with a different aspect ratio.
So, I guess the actual thrust of my question is format independent: If one is satisfied with the quality produced by a smaller format, rather than cropping the files from the larger and more expensive miniMF system to that format's size, wouldn't it make as much sense to just use the smaller format with its less expensive, smaller, and lighter camera and lenses?
(You are right that I have not used MFT myself. My evaluation of the format comes from the work that a close friend and fellow photographer does with the format, in work that has been exhibited alongside my own.)...Show more →
Dan, I would say you are correct about the sense to "use the smaller format" in certain cases.
However, as rightly noted above by @SGinNorcal, the choices are more guided by our liking of certain lenses than by the capabilities of the camera bodies. On my most recent trips I had two cameras: the GFX100S II and the micro-four-thirds OM-1 II. While I like the former with the two GF lenses I have (20-35mm F4 and 55mm F1.7), the latter is really good with the internal Olympus zoom, 40-150mm F2.8 (FF equivalent 80-300 F5.6). Naturally, the uses of the two camera systems are very dissimilar, yet, each is very useful. For example, I like OM-1 II & Oly 40-150mm F2.8 for street/people photography at the FF equivalent 300 mm focal length. This system is probably one of the lightest and relatively compact that reach to 300mm. Despite the apparent huge difference between the 100MP and 20MP sensors, somehow, I am not bothered by this difference in practice. Another case when I shall pick my OM-1 II over the GFX100S II is for macro photography, with the M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro lens.
There are different outstanding lenses for different applications that are available in the different "ecosystems" that can justify adding a suitable camera body. In my case, when I decided to add the GFX100S II, this was because of the 20-35mm F4 lens that might arguably be one of the top (if not the best) wide zooms across all systems. The 55mm F1.7 is another gem that justifies owning a GFX100 body.
I mentioned MFT because you mentioned a 2x crop... thinking that MFT might be a 2x crop relative to miniMF. But now that I think about it, I should have used APS-C instead, since I think its crop ratio relative to miniMF is roughly 2x... though with a different aspect ratio.
So, I guess the actual thrust of my question is format independent: If one is satisfied with the quality produced by a smaller format, rather than cropping the files from the larger and more expensive miniMF system to that format's size, wouldn't it make as much sense to just use the smaller format with its less expensive, smaller, and lighter camera and lenses?
(You are right that I have not used MFT myself. My evaluation of the format comes from the work that a close friend and fellow photographer does with the format, in work that has been exhibited alongside my own.)...Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote:
I expect that the cost of a 180MP sensor GFX in a model configuration comparable to current models (say a GFX100xII) will likely be about the same (or slightly less) in inflation-adjusted dollars as the current 100MP model at its introduction. That's virtually always the case with new camera models.
And, of course, those who want a 100MP version will be able to get great deals on the discontinued models. And those who already have a 100MP GFX and like it won't have to upgrade.
As to the car analogy, I think it is more like a manufacturer taking their standard engine from the previous model — which worked pretty darned well — and making it more fuel efficient and increasing its power output a bit. (If your analogy worked here, it would have applied equally to the 50MP to 100MP upgrade, which was an even larger percentage increase.)
As I wrote earlier, I agree that very few people "need" a 180MP sensor, just as I would agree that very few people need a 100MP miniMF sensor. But some do, and progress marches on, so if it is available it will happen and some will find value in it.
- - -
Someone earlier wrote that we have reached a "plateau." I understand the sentiment, but if I had $1000 for every time that people thought we had achieved a plateau in sensor resolution... I'd have enough money to buy a GFX and a half dozen lenses for it by now!
(Remember when 12MP Canon 5D sensors were almost beyond belief? And no one could imagine why we'd ever need 20MP or more? And you'd have been laughed at if you proposed a 50MP or 60MP FF sensor camera? )...Show more →
Agreed, the plateau argument seems to be from people who are only looking for very specific improvements, and are judging it based purely on their own needs. It is also sometimes made by people who do not want to invest in, and haven't/won't try newer tech..and they are trying to justify this stance. Camera tech is absoutely making noteable improvements.
The question that interests me in all this is whether autofocus/tracking performance is limited by the readout speed of the IMX461, or if the more powerful processor they'd need for a 180mp flagship camera could give us a 100s III with faster focus and/or (more importantly, IMO) better tracking. (I say "s" because I doubt we'd need a 180, 100 III, *and* 100s III in the line-up).
As I wrote earlier, I think that very, very few people “need” these super high resolution sensors, just a I think that very, very few people “need”:
Formats larger than APS-C.
Burst rates faster than 10-12 frames per second.
lenses longer than 400mm (FF)
ISOs higher htan 12800
Tripods
Thumb rests
44” printers
… and more.
;-)
Exactly. But, therefore "need" is not a valid argument, since we need almost nothing to live our lives.
I don't need a camera, but I enjoy using one. Especially if it gives me the image quality I want. And joy is a good thing.
Personally, I'd rather use a GFX camera with one single prime, than an MFT camera with a zillion lenses of all sorts.
Makten wrote:
Personally, I'd rather use a GFX camera with one single prime, than an MFT camera with a zillion lenses of all sorts.
We are all welcome to our choices. Neither of those options would be at the top of my list, but whatever. (Can’t imagine a bag large enough to hold “a zillion lenses…” ;-)
