A65 is the real news--but 24 MP?!

[dave_redmann]

<p>As far as I'm concerned, the A65 is bigger news that the A77. With the same sensor and viewfinder as the A77--a viewfinder that <em>sounds</em> like it might really be good enough for us optical-viewfinder die-hards--this $900 body just might be the big one for Sony. (And the uprated auto-focus and video capabilities sure are nice, too.)</p>

<p>As for the viewfinder, if I'm reading the specifications correctly, the 1.09 x magnification on the 23.5 x 15.6 mm sensor gives you the same viewfinder image size as the Canon 5D Mk. II's 0.71 x magnification on its 24 x 36 mm sensor. And the viewfinder's resolution is two to three times what any other mass-market digital's electronic viewfinder and/or back-panel screen gives you.</p>

<p>But I have to wonder: as what expense in terms of lenses needed and low-light performance? To put 24 MP of optical information onto that sensor, the lens has to deliver 128 lp/mm. Of Sony's current lens sales, do you want to bet on what proportion of the lenses at what proportion of the focal lengths and apertures would be found, in independent testing, to deliver 128 lp/mm at the sensor? I'm betting it's very low. And I'd rather have a cleaner 16 MP image than a noisier (or smudged) 24 MP image. And if Sony gave away any of its class-leading highlight dynamic range to increase the pixel count, shame on them.</p>

<p>Time will tell (well, time and instrumented reviews from DPReview, DxO Mark, and <em>Popular Photography</em>). But I guess I'm more impressed than I expected to be (even if my heart might rather see an A750 and an A950). So what do you think?</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>I'd say the excess of 24mp you speak of is exactly what makes the A65 NOT worth it in my opinion. It's the OTHER features of the A77 that make it worth the money, in spite of the sensor. <br /><br />The A700 ergonomics (dual wheel, vertical grip) plus the 1/250 sync, micro adjust focus, and probably a few other features are what make the A77 the only upgrade option for me. <br>

<br />The fact that both cameras have too many MP is a downer. ;) I guess I'll shoot at 12mp and hope it's better than my A700?</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>But I have to wonder: as what expense in terms of lenses needed and low-light performance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apparently, for CMOS technology, overall performance is meant to increase with pixel count, so "low light" performance isn't an issue here (it'll only get better).</p>

<p>As for the impact on lenses, not really an issue for me either. I can still use all my lenses the same way, and they're still create photographs. Whether they deliver the full 24MP in every photo isn't an issue (reaching full-resolution in every photo isn't a concern for me in general), if it gives me better tonality at higher iso, better dynamic range at the base level and throughout, then it's only a good thing for me.</p>

<p>As for it being the "real news", I'm not too sure, I feel very luke-warm on both the a-mount models.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The A700 ergonomics</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sadly, the A700 ergonomics needed to be improved on, and they haven't they've been diluted further. Sony seems more focused on "wizz" and "bang" than refining a photographic tool - something I didn't think would be the case with a 7 series.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>You don't <em>lose</em> anything by using a higher MP sensor, really. The question is how to best use what you <em>gain</em>, which is more pixels at the expense of quality-per-pixel. What I think I'd do with a camera like that, not having lenses that can render every pixel, is load raw files into Aperture or Lightroom, apply noise reduction and sharpening, and always export a lower resolution (like, say, 12MP).</p>

[gregory_king1]

<blockquote>

<p>Sadly, the A700 ergonomics needed to be improved on, and they haven't they've been diluted further. Sony seems more focused on "wizz" and "bang" than refining a photographic tool - something I didn't think would be the case with a 7 series.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compared to what? A850/A900? I'm just saying I need a bigger camera with VG and NONE of the other APS-C SLR's work for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You don't <em>lose</em> anything by using a higher MP sensor, really</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You lose a lot of HDD space and, unfortunately with the new LR3, a LOT of time editing the files. I'm so incredibly frustrated with how slow Lightroom is now, particularly with larger files. 24mp would absolutely not work for me on my computer. LR2 was so much faster.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Recent reports say that cRAW has been removed as well :(</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You lose a lot of HDD space and, unfortunately with the new LR3, a LOT of time editing the files. I'm so incredibly frustrated with how slow Lightroom is now, particularly with larger files. 24mp would absolutely not work for me on my computer. LR2 was so much faster.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like you need a new PC Greg, or atleast more RAM. Lightroom/ CS5 can be need a good amount of ram to work well. It's not terribly demanding or costly, trust me. A computer to handle A900 files really isn't expensive. As for space, HDD is so cheap these days, I don't think that's an issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>----<br>

Sadly, the A700 ergonomics needed to be improved on, and they haven't they've been diluted further. Sony seems more focused on "wizz" and "bang" than refining a photographic tool - something I didn't think would be the case with a 7 series.<br>

----<br>

Compared to what? A850/A900? I'm just saying I need a bigger camera with VG and NONE of the other APS-C SLR's work for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, you've lost me there :). "Compared to what"? You need to talk to me like I'm 5! What comparison are you talking about here?</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>My PC is new, but designed for efficiency, not speed. It worked FINE on LR2, and many have noted LR3 is much slower. 4gb of RAM should be plenty.</p>

<p>HDD space is cheap, but carrying 2x the storage than I need is still 2x more than I need. :) Having to changeout drives is also a pain. Having to upgrade multi-disc raids is also a pain. We don't all have enterprise storage that just allows us to "Voila!" pop in a new HDD to add a terabyte when we need one.<br>

<br />In fact, it's the NAS device that I use to explicitly hold all my large files (film scans and MFDB files) that results in even SLOWER editing times due to access speed. I can't put those files inside my computer lest I fill it up that much sooner.</p>

<p>You want to improve the A700 ergonomics and said they got worse. I'm saying what choice do you have? The ergonomics are better than any other Sony APS-C camera, so unless I want to buy a FF camera, I'm stuck with the A77.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>4GB of RAM doesn't sound like enough Greg, no matter what Adobe might be telling you. Get some more in there!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>HDD space is cheap, but carrying 2x the storage than I need is still 2x more than I need.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What you "need"? Is that fixed for all eternity? :). Things more on, if I was using the same drives I was when the A700 was released things wouldn't be good at all. It sounds like you might need to update your system... you edit from your NAS device? Try keeping all your current work on your desktop, and then move it over when complete. It's the same for when updating drives, so it doesn't really make any different about being able to "pop" in a new drive, does it? You use the space you have in your storage device, when that's full you move that over and put in "new" drives. It's only natural that when you put in "new" drives they're going to be larger than the ones you put in the time before hand. And if they're not, it really doesn't matter. If you're using 1TB drives you can get quite a lot of data in there before it fills up, even with 900 files. Unless your a photo journalist a churn out a million photos per year or somethiing rediculous like that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />You want to improve the A700 ergonomics and said they got worse. I'm saying what choice do you have? The ergonomics are better than any other Sony APS-C camera, so unless I want to buy a FF camera, I'm stuck with the A77.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right I see ;-). Well the choice is to <em>not</em> buy a camera that's going in the opposite direction to what you want - pretty simple. I want better ergonomics than the a700 and they take it further away from that, I'm not going to support it. I don't believe the A77 has the best ergonomics of the APS-C, that will still be the A700, or further back the Dynax 7D. They're diluting the original strength, which is just a shame. As I say, both my a-mounts have low miles, so not an immediate issue for me, but if any of these break an a77 would be too far away from the 700/850/900, it just wouldn't work.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>A famous man once opined that nobody would ever need more than 640k of RAM. But things change. Even a year and a half ago, my inexpensive 11.6" mini notebook came with 64-bit Windows. I had somebody ask me whether 16GB of RAM was overkill in a computer he was building for 3D animation using parts from Newegg - and when I saw that a Corsair 16GB kit now costs $120, my answer was no. I upgraded my home PC to 12GB just to make it better at panorama stitching. (Right now it's OCR'ing an 1100 page document - and that's easy.) Perfectly good 1TB hard drives sell for $60. I saw a name brand SDHC class 10 32GB card for $35 the other day.</p>

<p>24MP files from DSLRs don't seem at all excessive anymore, considering.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>They're excessive if I don't want them, or if they result in unacceptable noise. :) But as I said, I would be happy shooting at 12mp, if need be. <br>

<br />I'm not going to get in computer debates. The fact is...the same files edited fine on LR2 and they don't now on LR3. That's a software issue, not a hardware issue. Having to upgrade my computer just to buy a new camera is arguably a bit excessive. I'll look into more memory, or just not running that memory hogging Firefox at the same time. <br /><br /><br />Coincidentally, Best Buy just called yesterday and said rather than replacing a loose flash shoe on my A700, they'll give me a new "comparable model". (Yes, they replaced the shoe when I broke it a year ago, and the new one never held my flash firmly). So, indications are that they'll have to upgrade me to an A77. I just hope I can get my "broken" A700 back for cheap. ;-)</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>You don't </em>lose<em> anything by using a higher MP sensor, really.</em></p>

<p>That may not be correct. In terms of noice, DPReview has an interesting article taking the opposite view. Although it would appear that the smoothing effect of downscaling would reduce the noise, and thereby at least even things out compared to a lower-pixel-count camera with lower per-pixel noise, for various reasons (in part related to the way the Bayer mosaic works) the downscaling doesn't get you as much noise reduction as a simplistic view of random noise and signal processing would suggest. So even for a given output resolution / given size print, a higher pixel-count camera may well exhibit more noise.</p>

<p>Also, I am not convinced that pixel size / pitch has no effect on dynamic range. And yes, bloated pixels well in excess of what our lenses (some old Minoltas more than 20 years old) can deliver just strain our computers unnecessarily--are you going to tell my wife that I need a new computer in addition to the new camera? ; )</p>

<p>Yes, lens-specific micro-focus-adjust is the one feature that I'd really want that the A77 has but the A65 doesn't. But the A65 <em>also</em> has the 1/250 s x-sync.</p>

<p>So I guess my view of the A65 is that the high pixel count may be the real downside, because for me, 10 MP is enough, 12 MP is plenty, and anything over 16 MP would almost always be wasted. But you know how the public likes megapixels--and that was in part my point, about a camera that would be significant for Sony (by generating sales). Let's wait for at least samples from production cameras, if not instrumented testing, to see what tradeoffs (if any) Sony has made.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>It's a higher signal to noise ratio but with more signal. You can overcome deficiencies in high MP raw files with processing.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

I wish Sony would do something useful with 24 Mp, such as enhance dynamic range, rather than just fill up my storage media with images that are downright terrifying at 100% zoom.

 

E.g. did you see Dpreview's A77 sample of silk dresses at ISO 1600? Only a small part of the image (shoulder of green dress) is in focus, so you can see 100% in all its glory [sic] on your monitor. Whoa, scary, kids.

 

How does the A65 perform when shot at reduced resolution? Obviously we can't answer this yet, but we really need to know. It's a question that professional reviewers seldom investigate.

[pankaj purohit]

<p>But I see different problem here in terms of resolution and that is will the existing lenses can utilize full strength of a high resolution sensors like 24 mp. I am a Nikonian and after buying D5100 (16MP) recently I realized that the kit 18-55mm came with it and my existing 70-300mm G lenses hardly do justice with 16mp, only 50mm 1.8 uses every pixel of that resolution than whats the relevance of so high megapixels? leave aside how noisy or cleaner these high resolution sensors are.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, lens-specific micro-focus-adjust is the one feature that I'd really want that the A77 has but the A65 doesn't. But the A65 <em>also</em> has the 1/250 s x-sync.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I read that the A65 only has 1/160 sync, which corresponds correctly with its 1/4000 max shutter. <br /><br />Deal killer for me...as is the micro-focus.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Why do you think the lenses will need to resolve such high numbers Dave? The 24 MP sensor is hardly higher resolution than the 16 MP sensor. We're talking about a few hundred more pixels vertially, and about 1,000 more horizontally. That's only a 20 % increase! Do today's lenses resolve over 105 lp/mm? I doubt it. My guess is most can resolve at about 70 or 80 lp/mm and the better ones can resolve at 90 lp/mm. That would be at f4 or f5.6 and around the middle of their zoom range (or at least not at the extremes). Take a look at the image quality from some of Sony's best zoom lenses:</p>

<p>http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1449/cat/83<br>

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1126/cat/83<br>

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/970/cat/83</p>

<p>According to those tests, there is plenty of resolving power in Sony zoom lenses, especially when they are not set to extremes of zoom or aperture. I think it might be distortion and chromatic aberration that affect the image more than resolution. Here is a link to a Sony 35mm f1.4 G lens review: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/981/cat/82</p>

<p>Sure, the A77 will show the lens' shortcomings even more clearly, but a crap lens will produce a crap image, whether it is shot with an A55 or an A77, and a good lens will produce a good image on either body too. Do we need 24 megapixels? Probably not. It is a step in the right direction though, and two years from now, when a stellar quality lens comes on the market, someone with an A77 will gain slightly more benefit from it than someone with an A55.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Scott, you at least appear to be contradicting yourself. You said, "According to those tests, there is plenty of resolving power in Sony zoom lenses . . . ." But you also said: "My guess is most can resolve at about 70 or 80 lp/mm and the better ones can resolve at 90 lp/mm." If so, then on an A77-size sensor, most lenses can only resolve about 7 to 9 MP and the better ones can only resolve about 12 MP. You said: "Do today's lenses resolve over 105 lp/mm? I doubt it." Well even 105 lp/mm would only give you about 16 MP worth of real picture information. Obviously, lenses delivering 7 or 9 or even 12 MP worth of optical information are not plenty for a camera with a 24 MP sensor.</p>

<p>I looked at the reviews, but do not understand how to interpret the "blur index", at least in relation to MTF. And I will readily concede the lens performance, even resolution performance, cannot be reduced to one number, and any specification of X lp/mm is at best based on an arbitrary cut-off (typically but not universally 50% MTF response)--as well as the focal length, aperture, focus distance, etc.</p>

<p>You said: "It is a step in the right direction though, and two years from now, when a stellar quality lens comes on the market, someone with an A77 will gain slightly more benefit from it than someone with an A55." I am not at all ready to bet that two years from now, any lens practical for an A77 will come on the market that will take full advantage of the 24 MP. Lens design has advanced appreciably in recent years, but not nearly as fast as sensor design. My point is that the A65 and A77 probably <em>far</em> outstrip the ability of the <em>vast majority</em> of the Sony and Minolta lenses to deliver resolution, and that situation isn't likely to change soon. If so, then the increase in sensor resolution was a waste, and the apparent corresponding increase in noise will degrade every image, today and forever.</p>

 

[tom_montemarano]

<blockquote>Recent reports say that cRAW has been removed as well :(</blockquote>

<p>If you compare the file sizes of A77 raw (approx 25MB from imaging resource), A900 raw (approx 35MB) and A900 CRAW (approx 24MB), since both cameras are 24MP cameras, you should come to the conclusion that Sony only removed the "c" from "cRAW" but removed "RAW" raw. So at least now the controversy over which is better cRAW or RAW becomes moot.<br>

Tom</p>

 

[scottelly]

<p>Dave I think you are giving too much credence to the meaning of lp/mm or maybe not fully understanding what it means. lp/mm is a measurement of lines of resolution. To say that one pixel is equivalent to one line is not exactly right. If you calculate the 24mm width of the sensor times a simple 100 lp/mm of a good quality lens, you get 2,400 line pairs, which means that in order to resolve every line the number of pixels should be at least 4,800 (2,400 light lines and 2,400 dark lines). 6,000 pixels might seem like overkill, but I suggest that 9,600 pixels across the image will resolve those 4,800 lines better than 4,800 pixels would, and eventually even higher numbers of pixels will do the job even better. To get an idea of what is possible, just take a look at small compact cameras. Many of those cameras are capturing 12 or 14 megapixels today, even though their sensors are only 4 to 5 mm wide (the ones with the larger 1/2.3 are actually about 6mm across). If your assumptions are correct, then in order for a lens on a compact digital camera to resolve enough line pairs to produce a better image with one of those sensors vs. a 4 or 5 megapixel sensor, it would have to be incredibly high resolution (3 times the resolution of an SLR lens). They definitely do resolve more lines than a typical SLR lens, just as a typical SLR lens resolves more lines than a typical LF lens, but they don't resolve 3 times as many lines! Manufacturers can make better quality small lenses, especially with the aperture limitations of f3.5-f5.6 which is typical of such lenses, but ultimately those lenses can't resolve much more than about 200 lp/mm (or less, from what I've read). Even a 3 megapixel point-and-shoot camera with a 1/4" sensor (actually 3.2 mm across) has WAY MORE pixels per millimeter across its sensor than a 24 megapixel APS-C sensor camera. (A 12 megapixel camera with a 1/2" sensor has basically the same pixel density as the 3 megapixel 1/4" sensor.) See the chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format<br>

-<br>

My point is that somewhere the math doesn't add up as cleanly as you are thinking it does. There is something to be said about "edge resolution" as well. Do the lines have clean edges or soft edges? What is the contrast? An image may look sharper, when projected through the same lens, if you mount the lens on two different cameras, but the same is true of two different lenses, even if the sensors are dramatically different. A good lens . . . lets say a 24-70mm f2.8 Nikon or Canon L will resolve very high numbers at f5.6 in good light, with a low ISO and a fast shutter speed (or at least a still, scientific style testing set-up). The resolution is measurable on a 2.7 megapixel Nikon D1H or a 12 megapixel Nikon D300. Why? Because the image quality is better, which means the pixels will see that better image, even though the density of the pixels on the D300 sensor is about twice the horizontal and vertical resolution (actually, as I'm sure you already know, slightly more than twice).<br>

-<br>

Don't forget that when cameras were upgraded from 10 to 12 megapixels there was an improvement in image quality. My friend's 18 megapixel Canon 7 D captures incredibly high resolution images compared to his old 10 megapixel Rebel XTi. Yes, he is using a good lens (the 24-105mm f4 L), and he sets his lens on f8 or f11 most of the time, to get the best resolution, knowing that his sensor is a very high-density sensor. I'm sure the new Sony A77 will capture even better image quality than the Canon 7 D (given similar lenses).<br>

-<br>

Also don't forget that increasing the number of pixels by 50% does not increase the number of pixels across the sensor by that same number. It only increases the number of pixels across the sensor by about 1,000 pixels or about 20%. There are almost 5,000 pixels across a 16 megapixel sensor and only 6,000 pixels across a 24 megapixel sensor. (The number might be 1,100 instead of 1,000, but you get my point, right?)<br>

-<br>

Don't fall into the thinking that sensor size divided by pixel count equals some type of signal to noise ratio. The Canon 7 D has more pixels than the Canon 5 D, yet my friend's 7 D produces images with about the same noise as my 5 D, which has a sensor with twice the area and fewer pixels (photo-sites). It doesn't seem to add up, does it? I think it really comes down to sensor fill-rates. I believe they have figured out how to reduce the "wall thickness" of the photo-sites, increasing the efficiency of light gathering capabilities (amongst other things). Years ago sensors were considered to be "photon limited" - the electronics were supposed to be almost perfect. The problem is, there are always innovations. I believe that we will see that the new 24.3 megapixel sensor in the Sony A77 will actually produce a LESS NOISY image than the A55, just like the 16 megapixel Nikon D7000 produces a less noisy image than the 10 megapixel Nikon D200.<br>

-<br>

I guess we will find out soon!</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Scott, I understand all that math, thanks. Couple of key points:</p>

<p><em>To get an idea of what is possible, just take a look at small compact cameras.</em></p>

<p>That is not a valid comparison. As the lens's projected image circle gets smaller, it can deliver more and more lp/mm. All else being remotely equal (not that it always is!), a lens that only has to cover a sensor the size of my pinky nail should produce a lot more lp/mm than one covering an "APS-C" sensor (actually not quite 24mm wide, but close enough), and even a very good prime lens designed to cover 4x5 film is not likely to deliver as many lp/mm as a moderately decent zoom designed to cover APS-C.</p>

<p><em>n order to resolve every line the number of pixels should be at least 4,800 (2,400 light lines and 2,400 dark lines). 6,000 pixels might seem like overkill, but I suggest that 9,600 pixels across the image will resolve those 4,800 lines better than 4,800 pixels would, and eventually even higher numbers of pixels will do the job even better.</em></p>

<p>Not really. Yes, if you deliver 100 lp/mm to the A65's sensor (23.5 x 15.6 mm), your absolute best case scenario means you need a minimum of 100 lp/mm x 2 px / lp x 23.5 mm = 4700 pixels to resolve them--and that assumes the pixels and the lines are perfectly aligned. But how many pixels you really need to capture the lines (or line pairs) is not anything approaching 9600 pixels, which is way overkill, and even 6000 is more than necessary. I won't attempt to get deep into Nyquist Theorem issues, but the generally-accepted figure is that you need to sample something at about 10% higher than than the maximum frequency you are trying to record, so if the lens is delivering 100 lp/mm, you can capture it all by using about 5170 pixels wide (a little under 18 MP). And I strongly suspect that the big majority of the lenses that people will actually put on A65's, today or in the near future, are unlikely to deliver 100 lp/mm at many (if any!) combinations of focal length, aperture, and focus distance--and even that assumes perfect technique (e.g., sturdy tripod, self-timer or cable release, perfect focus), which will rarely be the case.</p>

<p>Now in the real world it is of course more complicated than this. Lenses don't suddenly stop delivering more detail as the frequency crosses some threshold; the detail just becomes lower and lower contrast, and therefore less and less visible / capturable. And of course the anti-alias filter and Bayer sensor and associated de-mosaic also affect performance. Real-world perfornace tests have typically found that DSLR's deliver real linear resolutions of about 75% to 80% of what their pixel-counts imply. But even assuming this is <em>all</em> due to the cameras and none due to the fall-off performance of the lenses, a lens would still have to deliver somewhere around 96 to 102 lp/mm to the A65's sensor. I'm betting that won't happen too often, and most A65 buyers would be better served by a lower-resolution, lower-noise sensor--maybe the revised 16 MP sensor in the NEX-5N.</p>

<p>As for noise, I realize that it's not remotely as simple as sensor area and pixel count. My point was that you don't necessarily get the same noise from a 16 MP sensor and an otherwise-identical 24 MP sensor whose image has been scaled down (cubic or whatever you choose) to 16 MP. The DPReview article on that was quite interesting. Given that situation, and the seemingly-reasonably assumption that sensors in cameras introduced at the same time would have a roughly-equal stage of technological development, I strongly believe that the big majority of users would be much better served by giving up some pixel count in favor of lower noise, higher dynamic range, or both.</p>

<p>Indeed we may see soon--unless Sony has gone back to its old tricks of putting appreciable noice reduction into the raw files, in which case knowing what the sensor could truly deliver will be difficult to impossible.</p>

<p> </p>

[scottelly]

<p>Dave I'm thinking that Sony and other manufacturers will continue the pixel race. There doesn't seem to be any reason for them to stop. More pixels means that they can apply noise reduction techniques that will make the images look better and better. I remember people saying that the noise of a 10 megapixel sensor made it impractical, but the Nikon D300 produces less noise and better quality images than any of those early 6 and 8 megapixel cameras.<br>

-<br>

We may see Sony and other manufacturers move to a Foveon style sensor, which doesn't block out so much light. It's sensible that a sensor that blocks out all but red light over quarter of the sensor area and all but blue light over quarter of the sensor area and the all but green light over half the surface area is actually only taking advantage of a very small amount of the light landing on the sensor surface. The Foveon sensors don't do this, which is why, I suspect, that the new Sigma SD1 seems to be able to produce such noise-free images. I'm not saying that Sigma has their Foveon noise issues licked, but they sure have come a long way over the past few years, and today's Foveon sensor cameras don't produce anywhere near as much noise as the SD9. Even the SD15, and older design seems to produce pretty low noise.<br>

-<br>

See this ISO 400 shot from an SD14:<br>

-<br>

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3946761708_1cd2747d9a_o.jpg<br>

-<br>

However it goes, I'm sure that Sony will probably introduce a "back-lit" sensor as their APS-C sensors approach higher and higher resolutions. As far as "overkill" or wasted pixels goes, I'm sure lots of people thought the same thing when Canon pushed up from 10 to 15 megapixels, with the introduction of the 50 D. The 40 D, as you may know, was only 10 megapixels, and lots of people used to say the 50 D had too many pixels. I don't hear any complaints like that about the 7 D. We will probably see 30 megapixel APS-C sensor cameras in a year or two, and I defy you to prove that those cameras don't produce a better image than today's best 16 megapixel camera. You will see.<br>

-<br>

There is one thing that you didn't seem to take into account, when you talked about pixel count, ad that is the number of green photo-sites on a 16 megapixel sensor vs. a 24 megapixel sensor. Supposedly people see green best, so green determines the was an image looks as far as clarity or resolution is concerned. There are only 8 megapixels of green on a 16 megapixel sensor. Maybe Sony believes that 12 megapixels of green photosites makes sense, even if 16 megapixels is all that is necessary to get great image quality from the best lenses. In fact, it may just be the fact that it is really the green photo-sites that determine people's "perception" of the clarity in an image, which will make Sony and other companies produce sensors with 15 or 16 megapixels of green photo-sites . . . and THEN they will stop the megapixel race. I guess we will find out in a few years, huh?</p>