Richard Crowe
TalkEmount All-Pro
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2018
- Messages
- 1,117
Mike, I totally agree that for many subjects the A6400/A6500 (the only ones with which I have had hands-on experience) will have no advantage over the A6300 because, they are basically using the same sensor. Rumors had it that Sony was bringing out a higher mp sensor for the A6500 replacement but, the intro of the A6600 brought us back to earth on that matter.
However, IQ is not solely dependent on sensor resolution. The auto focus capability of a camera has a lot to do with the final image capture and the quality of the image captured in some (but, certainly not all) shooting situations.
If a person did mostly landscape shooting, auto focus speed and reliability would not impact the final image to any great degree. I had a Sony NEX-7 converted to full time IR and despite the rudimentary AF of that camera, I can capture landscapes just fine using it. Since landscapes are all I ever plan to shoot using IR, the little (and very inexpensive as a used copy) NEX-7 suits me just fine and since I do most landscapes at the minimum ISO possible, high ISO capability is of no impact on that type of shooting.
If I were specializing on landscapes, I would want a higher resolution sensor. The A7Rii would be a good choice as a balance between higher resolution and used copy cost. However, higher resolution sensors demand higher resolution lenses in an ever upward spiral of weight and cost...
However, for a general purpose shooter a resolution of around 24mp might be the "sweet spot" because, I am told that the lower resolution allows higher ISO without excessive noise. The image above showing the Duke jumping with a ball in his mouth was shot at ISO 4,000 using manual exposure and auto ISO. For a guy like me, who started photography when ASA (forerunner to ISO) 125 was considered "high speed", shooting at an ISO of 4,000 and getting acceptable images is simply mind boggling.
However, IQ is not solely dependent on sensor resolution. The auto focus capability of a camera has a lot to do with the final image capture and the quality of the image captured in some (but, certainly not all) shooting situations.
If a person did mostly landscape shooting, auto focus speed and reliability would not impact the final image to any great degree. I had a Sony NEX-7 converted to full time IR and despite the rudimentary AF of that camera, I can capture landscapes just fine using it. Since landscapes are all I ever plan to shoot using IR, the little (and very inexpensive as a used copy) NEX-7 suits me just fine and since I do most landscapes at the minimum ISO possible, high ISO capability is of no impact on that type of shooting.
NEX-7
E 50mm F1.8 OSS
50mm
f/4.5
1/100s
ISO 100
If I were specializing on landscapes, I would want a higher resolution sensor. The A7Rii would be a good choice as a balance between higher resolution and used copy cost. However, higher resolution sensors demand higher resolution lenses in an ever upward spiral of weight and cost...
However, for a general purpose shooter a resolution of around 24mp might be the "sweet spot" because, I am told that the lower resolution allows higher ISO without excessive noise. The image above showing the Duke jumping with a ball in his mouth was shot at ISO 4,000 using manual exposure and auto ISO. For a guy like me, who started photography when ASA (forerunner to ISO) 125 was considered "high speed", shooting at an ISO of 4,000 and getting acceptable images is simply mind boggling.
Last edited: