[normhead]

I've heard varying theories of how much people can see from 3 to 4 feet away. From 8 inches away people can tell the difference between 300 and 600 DPI on a test chart. I've seen nothing that indicates on a landscape or portrait type image that 300 is more desirable from 200. On the canvases I print most of my work on 200 dpi blown up to 300 (because that is what teh guy who prints my stuff wants) is certainly adequate for a 30 inch print. There is also no magic that will enable your eyes to see from 4 feet away, or a normal viewing distance for a large print, what is barely discernable at 8 inches. If you print at 100 DPI. most printers will fill in the blanks and your work will neither look pixelated or out of place on a 48 inch print. It may not have the amount of detail as D800 print, with twice the resolution, but that doesn't mean it won't look good. ANd if you're going for the super-realialsitic hyper detail kind of look, a 4x5 camera with a scanner back is about the only thing that will get you there.

As I pointed out in the IR reviews, the difference between the K-05 and the D3200 (24 MP) is about 200 lw/ph, a less than 10% improvement. Personally I see a lot more improvement going to a quirky but useful Sigma DP2 Merril, which gives detail comparable to a D800 with a 16 MP file. I haven't seen what joe.penn has seen, so I don't know if I'd come to the same conclusion he did looking at the same print. I did examine images from a D3200 and my K-5 and came to the opposite conclusion.

I'm not willing to close the book on this one without some kind of evidence. Joe might be right... but what he's posted is all that convincing. everyone I've ever met thinks their camera is the best. having said that, if a 24 MP camera is the rage next time I upgrade, I'll probably buy one, but as i said, the false colour and fuzzy results in the test charts are making me think it's not the best way to go. Now a 24 MP Foveon, or even a 20, that would be awesome. I always want what I can't have (and probably wouldn't pay for if I could have it.)

[joe.penn]

I have images from both the K5 and D7100, I will print them tomorrow and shoot the prints and we can compare via pixel peeping. What I will do is print both images at 18x8 (epson R2000 using same premium paper) which will give the calculations I posted earlier on the PPI, from there the 100% crops will show the differences.

And yes, I would give a kidney for a 24mp Foveon sensor.

[normhead]

Just post a couopel of 1:1 crops joe... no need to go to the expense of printing. When I did my comparison I just used 1:1 crops and expanded my K-5 image in photoshop to make them the same size....

[CDW]

I regularly print 20x30 and larger but even in smaller sizes I can clearly tell the difference between in detail and tonality between my K5 and my 645D. Even my SONY a850, which is older 24 megs technology, at ISO 100 delivers a more pleasing image in smaller sizes than the K5 and I've done side by side comparisons. I suspect a K5IIs with primes would pretty much equal, for all practical purposes, the IQ of the 850. I remember this same type of argument back in the 90s when I was shooting MF film. I would hear that 35mm was all you need for an 8x10 but simply wasn't true then and it isn't now. An 8x10 from a Pentax 67 blew away 35mm. I also hear the same argument about HD vs SD TV...that at 20 feet you can't tell the difference. Unless one is blind, it simply isn't true.

[jon404]

Need 24 MP? Well, you don't, until you do. For web use... or for 300dpi printout of what, 8 x 12 images... no, you don't.

But. There's a cloud in our happily lo-res sky. Apple's 316 ppi Retina display. Marketing hype, to be sure... the human eye can't resolve anything over 250 ppi... and, taking advantage of this, here come the iPad competitors.

Me? I'm retired. But if I were still working (web design, e-learning development) ... I would be following the new screens with great interest. Think about it. The laptop I'm using tonight has what, 96 ppi screen resolution? So a 2-or3 MP image is more than enough to fill the screen. But -- double that resolution, and how many web pages will have to be re-worked? Aarrgghh! As for print, that's far less of a problem, since you're sending 300 dpi -- at most 600 dpi PDFs to printers using technology that changes very slowly. But on the screen side, the web side, the mobile devices side -- watch out! You won't want your viewers to swipe-enlarge that 2 MP image and have it pixelate right off the screen.

So -- grudgingly -- 24 MP. 30 MP 36 MP. Pixels dancing on the head of a pin. But plenty of room to crop, and still have a hi-res image. Just set aside a lot of money for that new camera, and a new PC fast enough to process those gigantic new RAW files!

[normhead]

Need 24 MP? Well, you don't, until you do. For web use... or for 300dpi printout of what, 8 x 12 images... no, you don't.

But. There's a cloud in our happily lo-res sky. Apple's 316 ppi Retina display. Marketing hype, to be sure... the human eye can't resolve anything over 250 ppi... and, taking advantage of this, here come the iPad competitors.

Me? I'm retired. But if I were still working (web design, e-learning development) ... I would be following the new screens with great interest. Think about it. The laptop I'm using tonight has what, 96 ppi screen resolution? So a 2-or3 MP image is more than enough to fill the screen. But -- double that resolution, and how many web pages will have to be re-worked? Aarrgghh! As for print, that's far less of a problem, since you're sending 300 dpi -- at most 600 dpi PDFs to printers using technology that changes very slowly. But on the screen side, the web side, the mobile devices side -- watch out! You won't want your viewers to swipe-enlarge that 2 MP image and have it pixelate right off the screen.

So -- grudgingly -- 24 MP. 30 MP 36 MP. Pixels dancing on the head of a pin. But plenty of room to crop, and still have a hi-res image. Just set aside a lot of money for that new camera, and a new PC fast enough to process those gigantic new RAW files!

ANd that is probably the sad reality of the situation....my whole argument against FF was unless your computer screen was more than 2500 pixels wide, you probably wouldn't see the difference. I know people think they can, usually people who know which image is whcih before they make their judgement, and I hope I don't have to explain how flawed that type of evaluation can be. Last time I was in the computer store, the guy offered to set me up with a multi-processor hackintosh and a korean 4000 pixel wide screen for a total of $1200. I thought, "the future is here." I already need 8000 pixels across to do a 1:2 reduction. And unless you're shooting with a Foveon sensor you probably need that 1:2 reduction. The computer technology is already ahead of the cameras.

On the other hand the resolution of a D7100 is 6000 x 4000. SO what we're actually talking about in real terms, is the ability to crop 1000 pixels each way to end up with an image the same size as your 4900 x 3200 K-5 image. You don't get that much for adding 8 MP. I Know some think that's a lot. I tend to think exponentially. When a technology doubles, that's a lot. A 20% increase in width, is not a lot.

I'm looking for the 80MP 645D, now that would be a lot. A 36 MP D800, now that's a lot. 24 MP, is more of an incremental shift.

[Rondec]

There probably is some difference, but it is not going to bee seen in a lot of shooting -- requires low iso, good shutter speeds, excellent glass , etc in order to truly see the resolution difference. I believe that you can see it when those things are met, but if you are chasing around your kids with a kit lens at iso 400 or 800, I doubt highly that you are going to see a marked improvement.

There are obviously many ways to increase resolution and stitching/use of multiple images is a way that works well and gives a lot more of a resolution bump than that achieved from going from 16 megapixels to 24 megapixels.

[JimJohnson]

My first digital camera had good optics and a 3.2mp sensor. It was half-way between what would now be considered a bridge camera and a P&S. I was quite happy with the images and they printed just fine up to 5X7 size ... and so long as I hung it on a wall, 8X10. Of course I NEVER used digital zoom.

I suspect my greatest use for 24mp would be cropping (in other words, digital zoom) or extremely low-light photography where I could suppress noise by limiting print size.

Anybody know at what point we surpass the resolution of consumer grade film from say, the 1990's?

[tuco]

...
Anybody know at what point we surpass the resolution of consumer grade film from say, the 1990's?

You mean stuff like the old formulation of Kodak's Gold film?

If you look at the MTF curve of most film available today, it is around 100 cycles/mm. Some a little higher. But having an optical path that high and holding the film flat enough is another story.