[tabl10s]

I basically learned the K-5 while on vacation. I saw that it was set to 10MP, but worried more about how many pics I would shoot, so I left it there. Did I miss much not shooting at full resolution?

[adpo]

are you going to make any major fashion editorials or print some ridiculously huge posters? if not, you're probably not missing much.

[twitch]

Put it back to 16MP though, it's crazy not to make use of the sensor you paid for. SD cards are ridiculously cheap now.

[LightMeter]

are you going to make any major fashion editorials or print some ridiculously huge posters? if not, you're probably not missing much.

+1.

The only reason I shoot at 12mp with my Nikon D300 is just in case there's a few images I might want to crop later. Other than that, 6mp would be just fine to go as large as 11X14. My previous DSLR was 6, and I had no complaints.

[RioRico]

I now shoot RAW only so the megapickleage doesn't really matter. Downsampling is easy.

[fred190]

cool,,,,

[Don From The Radio]

Anyone who doesn't need those 6 extra megapixels is more than welcome to trade a K-5 for my K200D.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well in most cases 6 megapixel is enough, espescially now that people only watch pictures on their computer screen with HD resolution.

I shoot in RAW or JPG 16 mp because I sometimes crop and make sometimes prints.

I use 32 GB cards and have a 2 TB disc in my PC.

[tabl10s]

Well in most cases 6 megapixel is enough, espescially now that people only watch pictures on their computer screen with HD resolution.

I shoot in RAW or JPG 16 mp because I sometimes crop and make sometimes prints.

I use 32 GB cards and have a 2 TB disc in my PC.

I think I'll start doing the same.

[Chazz5]

Well in most cases 6 megapixel is enough, especially now that people only watch pictures on their computer screen with HD resolution.

1. Won't a good 16MP sensor and lens will catch more tonal variation (luminance and colors) than a 6 MP sensor of the same size?

2. Post-processing can bring out those variations -- and there is more to bring out in the 16 MP image.

3. So it would seem that downsizing the processed 16MP image will (often?) display more of the tonal variation than a less-downsized 6MP image. I don't know enough optical physics to prove it.

Analogy is not proof, but if you have a high hill and deep valley and you happen to sample the peak and the bottom, more variation shows than anything you do with a shorter hill and more shallow valley.