is the highest tech, highest dpi et. c really necessary ?

To directly answer your question in the title, no, it's not necessary. Just like you can make great images with a Holga's plastic lo-fi lens.

I'd say it's down to how you want to communicate with your viewers. Some people's photographs rely on that super high res look to carry the weight of the subject. Some people could use that Holga and the fastest low res scan and make their point. It's fairly easy to chase the resolution/quality, it's much harder (for me and seemingly lots of other photogs) to nail down exactly what they want to say.

I will say, that after a friend give me a drum scanner and getting a bit of the way up the learning curve there, it made me appreciate film more than my flatbed scanner ever could. Having the ability to pull a quality file out of a 6x7 or larger negative (smaller negs look nice and sharp too but the quality differences are much more apparent, so MF and LF really pop) changes the way I make images. If you can get further up the quality curve, you might be able to reduce the quantity. I have, anyway, and I'm at a loss with what to do with the very good 35mm equipment I have lying around here.

blockend said:

I'm pleased you managed to market your photograph, but it clearly is not because your camera has captured reality authentically. Nothing about the picture is how the night sky looks to the human eye. There is nothing wrong with that, infra red and x-ray photographs also depict a different reality beyond the visible human spectrum and make fascinating subjects..

Click to expand...

OT
When you are away from light sources, better if at a certain altitude but it's not necessary, the night sky looks like the one in the picture in post 21 and even more spectacular.
If you are on a mountain and the moon suddenly rises over the night sky, I assure you the instinct is to bow and praise the Goddess, or the God behind all this.
The sky at night is just fabulous. The via lattea is very clearly visible.
Deep in the countriside, away from cities, you can have the same experience if you avoid any light source for half an hour.

Diapositivo said:

OT
When you are away from light sources, better if at a certain altitude but it's not necessary, the night sky looks like the one in the picture in post 21 and even more spectacular.
If you are on a mountain and the moon suddenly rises over the night sky, I assure you the instinct is to bow and praise the Goddess, or the God behind all this.
The sky at night is just fabulous. The via lattea is very clearly visible.
Deep in the countriside, away from cities, you can have the same experience if you avoid any light source for half an hour.

Click to expand...

I spent the summer at the darkest island in Britain, no street lighting whatsoever, and the sky didn't look like the photograph even though it was full of stars. I've also seen the night sky in the far north and the southern Adriatic, ditto. Stars do not transmit sufficient luminance to portray the sky that way, it's a processing facility. The latest cameras can show night for day, whether that is a necessary tool for creative photography is for the individual.

There are two things to consider.

First, it's all just tools. So unless you have a need to print huge, photograph in low light, do some massive cropping, etc., then there's a limit to what you actually need. Anything beyond that won't produce better results, but will certainly cost you more. If you never exceed the limitations of your current gear, then an upgrade won't do you any good other than provide a nice shopper's high.

Second is the rate at which new technologies develop. Usually when they first come out, there are several years of major improvements, one right after another. Then the improvements become more and more incremental over time. Look at computers. 4GHz processors came out over a decade ago, and that's still about as fast as you can reasonably buy. They make up for that lack of speed increase by giving you processors with multiple cores, which were also available in servers over a decade ago. The main difference is the price of this stuff and some of the surrounding architecture. But back in the early 90's, computers doubled in speed just about every year. These days a 10 year old computer is still reasonably fast. In 1996, a ten year old computer wouldn't be fit to give away.

It's tempting to think a 36 MP camera is going to be a major improvement over a 16 MP camera. But in reality, there's very little difference. You're doubling the pixel count, but you're not going to be able to print twice as large. To print twice as large at the same resolution, you need a pixel count that's 4x larger. So if you want to print 16x20 at the same sharpness a 16 MP camera can give you on an 8x10 print. you're gonna need a 64 MP camera. The same idea applies with printers, scanners, and all of that other stuff. Sure, there have been improvements in other areas like lower noise, higher dynamic range, increased features, and updated compatibilities, but all in all, a 10 year old digital camera isn't yet obsolete. Not like a 10 year old digital camera was 10 years ago.

There's really no good reason to upgrade unless your equipment fails or you feel it is necessary. This whole notion that people are forced to upgrade is silly. Barring hardware failure, there's no reason the camera you bought ten years ago won't produce the same pictures now as it did then. I have noticed that over time those early images didn't look so good to what I can produce with the same equipment now. I also notice aberrations and quality issues with the lenses I use that I didn't before. I've found as my technique has gotten better, I actually need less camera than before. It's also amazing what one can do with image stacking and panoramas.

There is no upgrade treadmill. With any kind of self-discipline one can afford feeling compelled to buy the latest and greatest, or even avoid the feeling that one is missing the bus when the advertising for the latest gear ramps up.

jim10219 said:

It's tempting to think a 36 MP camera is going to be a major improvement over a 16 MP camera. But in reality, there's very little difference. You're doubling the pixel count, but you're not going to be able to print twice as large. To print twice as large at the same resolution, you need a pixel count that's 4x larger. So if you want to print 16x20 at the same sharpness a 16 MP camera can give you on an 8x10 print. you're gonna need a 64 MP camera. The same idea applies with printers, scanners, and all of that other stuff. Sure, there have been improvements in other areas like lower noise, higher dynamic range, increased features, and updated compatibilities, but all in all, a 10 year old digital camera isn't yet obsolete. Not like a 10 year old digital camera was 10 years ago.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. The jump in image quality from my D700 at 12MP to the D800 at 36MP was so utterly mind blowing to myself and clients in terms just how much the color, tones and details opened up it was mesmerizing. There is a BIG difference between 12MP and 36MP. I don't expect there to be nearly as much a difference between 36MP and 45MP however.

One really important thing about going from 12 to 36MP for me was just how much more interpolation the images could handle when printing large. If there is one reason alone for me to have upgraded, that would be it.

Most photo enthusiasts don't really need to upgrade all the time. I do because I simply wear the gear out, am always looking for the cleanest images I can get above ISO 3,200 and really appreciate things like autofocus fine tune via live view, a much better AF that works in much lower light than before, etc.

I really push my gear hard both in terms of feature sets and workload and that is a *much* different world of photography than the enthusiast is used to.

While there is a meaningful increase in quality for prints when you go up from 12MP to 36MP, there are more changes than just pixel count to take into account.
The processors and firmware are as much if not more important than the sensors themselves. Digital files are more a creation of the processor and firmware than they are a creation of the sensor.

blockend said:

I spent the summer at the darkest island in Britain, no street lighting whatsoever, and the sky didn't look like the photograph even though it was full of stars. I've also seen the night sky in the far north and the southern Adriatic, ditto. Stars do not transmit sufficient luminance to portray the sky that way, it's a processing facility. The latest cameras can show night for day, whether that is a necessary tool for creative photography is for the individual.

Click to expand...

I am surprised by what you say.
Did you wait for half an hour in total darkness? Even a tiny light (such as the LED in a keyring, or less, some streetlights in the distance) can prevent the eye to fully adapt to total obscurity.
If there is a city in the vicinity, no cigar, and there must be no moon either.
If conditions are favourable, you will absolutely see that sky. I promise! I saw it many times in my life, during summer time, in Greccio (RI) and Belforte (PU) in Italy when I was a child.
Nowadays one really has to get a car, go somewhere uphill, find a desert spot reasonably away from the road and away from lights (lights by car must not be visible) and wait for half an hour.