01-24-2016, 10:53 AM
The way I see it, 50 MP - as well as 42 - already scratches massively on Medium format domains. But the tolerances of the mechanics for lenses and bodies don't get tighter just like that. I don't think a manufacturer just can shrink a MF sensor to 135 dimensions without shrinking the tolerances of all involved mechanics as well, otherwise we will keep reading "issues" about not so precise focus-modules, not to mention AF accuracy.
My rule is, if it comes to reliable AF functions, the lenses to the camera should not be much older than the body. On Lensrentals I found an old blog post which showed a much better repeatability of the focus when the 5DIII worked with a new 24 mm than the 5DII with the same lens or the 5DIII with an older lens. The interesting part starts at "So What Does This Mean?"
So, do we really want a "miniature MF body" which can't be cheap? Or leave the SuperMegaPixel battle to the person really (???) needing 50...100 MP. The two features of the new Nikons which are attracting me most, are the high ISO and the onboard AF adjustment of the D500 (given, it's working and it's working with both genuine and third party lenses). For the rest I don't have any use.
My rule is, if it comes to reliable AF functions, the lenses to the camera should not be much older than the body. On Lensrentals I found an old blog post which showed a much better repeatability of the focus when the 5DIII worked with a new 24 mm than the 5DII with the same lens or the 5DIII with an older lens. The interesting part starts at "So What Does This Mean?"
So, do we really want a "miniature MF body" which can't be cheap? Or leave the SuperMegaPixel battle to the person really (???) needing 50...100 MP. The two features of the new Nikons which are attracting me most, are the high ISO and the onboard AF adjustment of the D500 (given, it's working and it's working with both genuine and third party lenses). For the rest I don't have any use.