4 ms·

I just preordered the Sony A7r II: "only" 42MP but DxoMark ranks the sensor higher than the Canon.

varikin 11y ago
These are not even counting scanning negatives (can be massive) or digital backs for medium format cameras. Hasseblad had a 60+MP back 10 years ago just because the sensor was larger.
mikeyouse 11y ago
That looks like a monster of a camera, can't wait to see what you do with it.
- PStamatiou 11y ago
  same here :) I'm sure I will write about it in a future post or photoset.
mpdehaan2 11y ago
I wish Sony would have a better native lens selection and then I'd probably be all over that. I'm super impressed with the Fuji lineup lately (and size) - i.e. XT-1 (clarification: I own one), though at APS-C I'd still like a greater megapixel count. Faster lenses and portability do seem to be sufficiently make up for the sensor size in my book though; but if Sony was putting out some drool-worthy fast primes it would be tempting.
- vvanders 11y ago
  Yup, lenses are where you should invest your money. Lots of people go for the fanciest camera when the correct ordering is: Available Light / Flash > Lenses >>> Camera Also lenses hold(or appreciate in the case of the EF 300 2.8 and 400 2.8) while you can pick up last-gens camera body for a hugely discounted price.
  - munificent 11y ago
    A good fast prime will take pretty pictures in most light so I'll take good glass over a flash any day of the week. Totally agree about available light being the most important thing, though. I think it even trumps having a good subject in many cases.
saiya-jin 11y ago
in all honesty, correct me if I'm wrong, Canon doesn't produce state-of-the-art sensors, does it. in fact, at least according to very same dxomark, Sony does... and since Sony glasses suck/there are too few & good ones are overpriced, to me it seemed logical to go Nikon way (which use Sony sensors, namely D750 in my case). Now Canon with proper sensors, that would be a killer combination, wouldn't it

These are not even counting scanning negatives (can be massive) or digital backs for medium format cameras. Hasseblad had a 60+MP back 10 years ago just because the sensor was larger.

mikeyouse 11y ago

That looks like a monster of a camera, can't wait to see what you do with it.

PStamatiou 11y ago
same here :) I'm sure I will write about it in a future post or photoset.

mpdehaan2 11y ago

I wish Sony would have a better native lens selection and then I'd probably be all over that. I'm super impressed with the Fuji lineup lately (and size) - i.e. XT-1 (clarification: I own one), though at APS-C I'd still like a greater megapixel count. Faster lenses and portability do seem to be sufficiently make up for the sensor size in my book though; but if Sony was putting out some drool-worthy fast primes it would be tempting.

vvanders 11y ago
Yup, lenses are where you should invest your money. Lots of people go for the fanciest camera when the correct ordering is: Available Light / Flash > Lenses >>> Camera Also lenses hold(or appreciate in the case of the EF 300 2.8 and 400 2.8) while you can pick up last-gens camera body for a hugely discounted price.
- munificent 11y ago
  A good fast prime will take pretty pictures in most light so I'll take good glass over a flash any day of the week. Totally agree about available light being the most important thing, though. I think it even trumps having a good subject in many cases.

saiya-jin 11y ago

in all honesty, correct me if I'm wrong, Canon doesn't produce state-of-the-art sensors, does it. in fact, at least according to very same dxomark, Sony does... and since Sony glasses suck/there are too few & good ones are overpriced, to me it seemed logical to go Nikon way (which use Sony sensors, namely D750 in my case). Now Canon with proper sensors, that would be a killer combination, wouldn't it