[Edvinas]

This as far as I can tell is wrong and I thing, please correct me if I've made some wrong assumptions.

IMHO you've made wrong assumptions.

18mp is a resolution of about 5194x3464 and 36mp is about 7350x4900

50%crop of 7350x4900 is 3675x2450 or about 9MP.

Well, in fact you've taken here only 25% of original image.

The thing to bare in mind is that if you want to print something at double the size at the same dpi, you need 4x as many pixels.

No. If you want to print double size, you need double pixels.
Doubling picture size is doubling one of image's side's, not both. When you double both sides, you quadruple picture's size.

so ignoring all other things going from 16mp to 24mp will only allow you to increase the image by about 20%

No, it's 50% increase.

[Dave L]

IMHO you've made wrong assumptions.


Well, in fact you've taken here only 25% of original image.


No. If you want to print double size, you need double pixels.
Doubling picture size is doubling one of image's side's, not both. When you double both sides, you quadruple picture's size.


No, it's 50% increase.

The initial post that stevedh commented on was comparing pixel count and lens focal length. I think the point is that if you double the pixel count that doesn't double the image resolution (assuming a good enough lens), and won't in any sense allow you to use a 300mm lens instead of a 600mmm lems as was claimed in the post stevedh replied to. You'd need to quadruple the pixel count to do that (and of course other factors *might* make it a less satisfactory way of doing things anyway).

[Edvinas]

The initial post that stevedh commented on was comparing pixel count and lens focal length. I think the point is that if you double the pixel count that doesn't double the image resolution (assuming a good enough lens), and won't in any sense allow you to use a 300mm lens instead of a 600mmm lems as was claimed in the post stevedh replied to. You'd need to quadruple the pixel count to do that (and of course other factors *might* make it a less satisfactory way of doing things anyway).

Yep, this is true - to get the same FOV as 600mm from 300mm lens you have to crop 1/4 of the picture.

Sorry for not reading the very beginning of the discussion

[Anvh]

You haven't been paying attention. benjikan shot the cover of Harper's Bazarre with a K20D, 14 mp, many have pointed out that if you want to go full frame a Nikon D700 with 12 MP is more than adequate. These things can be used for things that go way beyond "every day" use. In fact, for everyday use, some have suggested a 6 mp *ist is adequate.. IN my experience 12 Mp is fine for prints of up to 20x30 inches. I would consider that up in the extraordinary range. Nothing day to day about it.

Someone really needs to define why they need a 36 Mp image. SO far, no one has defined why they need a 16 Mp image. There's kill and overkill. There is makes a difference (in which case the difference can be defined, and should be, if claims are being made) or there's doesn't make a difference.

I'm guessing there are some uses for which big files are necessary, however, no one knows what they are. I've suggested previously that images over 50 inches wide probably need larger than 16 Mp... but I'm guessing. I would consider that to be an extra-ordinary circumstance. There is a long way between that and "day to day"

A more accurate statement would be, "most K-5 users agree 16 mp is overkill for everyday use." I personally rarely use more than 1024 of my 5000 pixels wide. That is overkill on a grand scale.

Don't stare to blind on these things you're saying.

What if they can and will use those extra pixels in a different way then what they are doing now?
Maybe use more colours then red green and blue for the filter to expand the dynamic range and colour range for example, more pixels can be used in different ways then just resolution.

[normhead]

Don't stare to blind on these things you're saying.

Oh really? like I'd stare blind at what anyone is saying. Most of these posts are speculation and explorations of what's possible and probable. If you are in the habit of "staring blind" then you're attention is sadly misplaced. If on the other hand you're saying I might stare blind at something I posted, too funny. I guess everything needs to be posted with a spoiler, "I am spouting off from the top of my head and in no way guarantee the accuracy of anything I say, most of which is vaguely remembered from other sources, possibly accurately, possibly not, but some of which I just make up on the fly." I wouldn't want to confuse anyone like yourself who might "stare blind". This is the internet. I'm not being paid to be 100% accurate. ANd I haven't found anyone else here who is either. MY advice, it's a conversation, take it for what it's worth.. if you don't see the point someone is making... no problem, but it's probably not their fault for being imprecise, it's probably yours for expecting too much. Even guys like Mark S and jsherman, where I often dislike the way they say what they say, and think they often confuse the issue more than they clarify it, I understand the points they are making. If you disagree with the point, that's one thing, to quibble about the way it's presented is another. Hey but, if you like trading insults, I can do it with the best... bring it on. Do you really think I need you to figure out what they might do with extra pixels? Cause you so smart and I'm so dense?

Or to put it more succinctly

Don't go getting all condescending on me. I'll slap you upside the head. ( I'm joking dude, don't go getting you knickers in a knot.)

[Anvh]

What the f*ck XD

[tabl10s]

which means that the new camera will have increased MP's even if 99% of us don't need it. I'll buy it when it does debut for the simple reason that it should have a better optical finder and a multi-positional LCD that the K-5 will never have.

[Geoff H]

About the glass, most of my glass out resolve the sensor so that isn't a problem.

Even the kit lens could out resolve 16mp.

You're kidding right? You're saying that the kit lens has the same resolving powers as one of the better 'limiteds' when on a K5? i.e. that when it comes to detail the kit is as good as you'll even need with 16 mpx?

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I could see more detail with a prime than the kit lens when using the 6 mpx *ist DS...

[Geoff H]

This is sooo true....

Excellent:-)

And as for the 60" museum prints - first, big posters are designed to be looked at from several metres away - at that distance it's like an 6x4 in your hand - and to satisfy the punters who do lift up their glasses and touch the canvas with their noses you'd use a medium format digital where the lenses are able to resolve the required amount of detail...

I like the 400 hp analogy - in the photography world maybe we've reached the Leica 111 moment - want something small that takes fabulous pictures? Well here it is - 80 years ago.

[Geoff H]

which means that the new camera will have increased MP's even if 99% of us don't need it. I'll buy it when it does debut for the simple reason that it should have a better optical finder and a multi-positional LCD that the K-5 will never have.

I'm afraid the K5 Optical finder is about as good as you are going to get with an APS (even the *ist DS was better than the competition) just the limitations of the small sensor and the optics needsed - you're never going to be able to quite match an MX for example. It's already better than most though.

Swivel screen? It's very personal of course but the only ones I would even use would be twist and fold ones that allow the screen to reverse into the camera to protect it and to stop it distracting you.

[Anvh]

You're kidding right? You're saying that the kit lens has the same resolving powers as one of the better 'limiteds' when on a K5? i.e. that when it comes to detail the kit is as good as you'll even need with 16 mpx?

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I could see more detail with a prime than the kit lens when using the 6 mpx *ist DS...

Ah yes but doesn't mean the kitlens wouldn't benefit.
Certainly when you use the 18-35 at 35mm and stop down a bit it's very capable.

[tabl10s]

I'm afraid the K5 Optical finder is about as good as you are going to get with an APS (even the *ist DS was better than the competition) just the limitations of the small sensor and the optics needsed - you're never going to be able to quite match an MX for example. It's already better than most though.

Swivel screen? It's very personal of course but the only ones I would even use would be twist and fold ones that allow the screen to reverse into the camera to protect it and to stop it distracting you.

I like shooting from waist-level for a different perspective and low levels. My LX enabled me to do that before my knees
were shot.