Originally posted by JohnBee As a fan of landscape photography, I can see where 1:1 output would be every bit as integral as that of reduced printing.. I do think the same sort of requirements come-in on various studio and media grade photography as well...
... differences in detail due to AA filtration may not be recoverable by post processing. Having said that... it would take a considerable amount of effort to setup a reliable testing method...
... seen or observed at 1:1(or 100%) where both the advantages and consequences are visible.
...
"good photo's" for some time now. However, as needs and requirements continue to move forward, I think everyone is in there right to expect a likely progression along the way also.
Personally, I'd like to see Pentax build a prosumer grade body.
IOW. A crop sensor system that would command the outmost in IQ and performance for the working professional that 'would not' cost 10 thousand dollars.
I've yet to see a 100%, in focus crop that was not sharper than my eye could see. Anti aliasing is a very important part of digital signal processing. Look at it this way: you have two choices (this goes with any digital sensor). You either lose a little detail, for argument's sake, bumping your 16 MP camera down to 15 MP. Or, you could keep it at 16MP and watch as your digital sensor generates all sorts of artifacts that do not exist in the original scene. As a landscape photogtapher, do you want colour moire to attach itself to the treeline? Would you like to process it out of the waves?
If you insist on judging files at 100%, judge both the product, and the alternative. I have seen pictures of this camera at 100% and people going "boo hoo" (likely people who are not used to owning a 16 MP ASP-C). But they aren't comparing it to anything. They compare it to a lower-MP camera and don't equalize the resolution, or the D7000, which is sharper and shows more colour moire.
If you are a working professional, colour moire would be worse. It would take you longer to process it out (costing you sharpness, by the way), and that costs you money.
Furthermore, exactly how large are you printing these landscapes? If sharpness at wall-sized prints is your thing you are going to have to stop being cheap and purchase yourself a FF or MF camera. You want your cake and to eat it too, and still complain. This argument is actually very hard for me to understand because people are posting pictures that are very sharp and then complaining that they are soft. The, someone shows me some Russian who shoots a vodka bottle in a poorly-lit room at ISO 800, and it doesn't even look like the poor Russian knows how to properly focus his camera!
Maybe one of the problems is that people forget that more megapixels means you are zooming in more, which is misleading when you are looking at pixel level sharpness. Print K10D, K20D, K5 prints exactly the same size, processed directly from raw. Tell me if you can see that the K5 is noticeably softer. Until you do that, stop complaining that the camera is not "professional".
And for god's sake stop talking about JPEGs. If you are this particular I can't understand for the life of me why you would shoot JPEGs.
I certainly
do not hope that the K-3 has a weak AA filter which forces me to clean colour moire out of my photos one by one.