-
Posts
-
Pieter, You answer your own question why: " absolute best image quality despite bigger file size and more noise on pixel level." Given my experience with 35mm, med and large format I know what increased resolution looks like even with much smaller prints of 8x10 and 11x14. In this case its certainly not marketing crap. Its a real world improvement. If you are using the kit zoom then perhaps there is not much more to resolve but again I'm using quality prime lenses and I know -
I was also going to mention the A7x's. 24mp is absolutely fine for me, image quality is great and it's more than big enough for any print I would ever want to do. Until then, I don't see a need for more. For what it's worth, I previously owned a Pentax K1 (36mp). It was nice to have that additional crop-ability but it was entirely unnecessary for every scenario I would use my photographs (currently). -
Hi, many forums and the "pros" once were certain that the star eater issue makes the Sony A7 Series unusable for astrophotography but I always had good results with my Sony A7rII. So I recently went ahead and had it astromodified. The thick IR-Block Filterglas was replaced with a thin Baader substitute that lets IR Light down to the h-alpha line and the sII line through to the sensor with high transmission. The results can be seen in detail on my google drive link here: https://drive.g -
Honestly, why do you need more MP? 24 MP is plenty for any kind of print you may ever want to make if you factor in optimal viewing angle. All these bells and whistles you speak of result in a vastly better image than just boosting the MP-count would (better AF and subject tracking, better low light ISO-performance, etc). Higher MP is just marketing crap unless you plan to heavily crop or print billboard size and stand with your nose against the canvas. For good reason the A7x you refer to -
-
