How can I know what I need?
How can I extrapolate the available MP today which don't show "all details" I'm looking for and at the same time extrapolate my photographic skills in a way to deal with stability? Stability becomes very crucial the higher you go with MP (the better you can see the lack of skill on 100% pixelpeeping level.
So, what I gain with extra portion of MP can very easily be lost or become part of a kind of motion blur. Going higher with ISO also costs resolution. In general I want as much pixel I still can handle.
In theory, with smaller cameras the masses of moving parts also become smaller and lighter - but at the same time the sensitivity towards micro movement increases as the scale of reproduction increases, too, togetehr with the influence of noise. On a MF sensor's acceptable noise can become detracting if the sensor is so much smaller that I need to enlarge more.
To me, I thought the 36 MP are pretty enough for a long time. Until I compared these Bayer sensor files to much more detailed 16 MP × 3 Foveon files which showed more and better details at base ISO than even the D800 or D810 with an Otus lens in front could show. The D850's 46 MP are not "better" as a pure number. Nikon did so much in sensor design like to different gain levels for base and high ISO that the technology becomes less comparable. They also did a lot with AF (and they have to, 36 MP already pushed the AF to unknown limits, 46 even more so). And the inbuilt focus stacking now finally offers me depth of fields at will and at best aperture. 46 MP is the less important part of that package to me.
If you just offer me more MP, I'll pass. I can do everything and much more than I'm capable by skills wit the D850's MP.
If you offer me more MP in a mirrorless body with decent AF and a couple of handling features I just miss today, I will start to become tempted - but not by MP only.
How can I extrapolate the available MP today which don't show "all details" I'm looking for and at the same time extrapolate my photographic skills in a way to deal with stability? Stability becomes very crucial the higher you go with MP (the better you can see the lack of skill on 100% pixelpeeping level.
So, what I gain with extra portion of MP can very easily be lost or become part of a kind of motion blur. Going higher with ISO also costs resolution. In general I want as much pixel I still can handle.
In theory, with smaller cameras the masses of moving parts also become smaller and lighter - but at the same time the sensitivity towards micro movement increases as the scale of reproduction increases, too, togetehr with the influence of noise. On a MF sensor's acceptable noise can become detracting if the sensor is so much smaller that I need to enlarge more.
To me, I thought the 36 MP are pretty enough for a long time. Until I compared these Bayer sensor files to much more detailed 16 MP × 3 Foveon files which showed more and better details at base ISO than even the D800 or D810 with an Otus lens in front could show. The D850's 46 MP are not "better" as a pure number. Nikon did so much in sensor design like to different gain levels for base and high ISO that the technology becomes less comparable. They also did a lot with AF (and they have to, 36 MP already pushed the AF to unknown limits, 46 even more so). And the inbuilt focus stacking now finally offers me depth of fields at will and at best aperture. 46 MP is the less important part of that package to me.
If you just offer me more MP, I'll pass. I can do everything and much more than I'm capable by skills wit the D850's MP.
If you offer me more MP in a mirrorless body with decent AF and a couple of handling features I just miss today, I will start to become tempted - but not by MP only.