Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-24-2013, 07:11 PM   #31
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
Now I'm curious, what 24 MP system are you shooting?

04-24-2013, 07:30 PM   #32
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
I think when Pentax releases their 24MP body, folks will fall in.

There just isn't much downside besides storage + throughput + processing time, and that's a transitory, short-lived drawback.
04-24-2013, 07:55 PM   #33
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,496
QuoteOriginally posted by tabl10s Quote
if you never intend to print? I highly doubt I will.
What about cropping?
04-24-2013, 08:21 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,596
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Now I'm curious, what 24 MP system are you shooting?
I believe he has a Nikon D7100. That's why I think the K-5 replacement is likely to be 24MP too. D7000/K-5 were almost sisters, D7100/New-K likely to follow the same path.

04-24-2013, 09:00 PM   #35
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,416
DxOMark - SNR evolution over time

DxOMark - More pixels offset noise!

A few years back I was looking at switching to a Sony A900 and using DxO RAW processor. Someone from DxO did an interview where they explained how RAW processors work better with higher density sensors. At that time DxO scanned a radius around every "pixel" to determine what was noise and the more pixels that were inside of the radius the better job DxO could do at determining what was noise and what was detail. This was/is one reason DxO was so slow. I haven't tried a recent version to know if it is any faster.

The Sony A900 was not a "low noise" camera, but its images cleaned up really well. The A900 had the same s/n ratio as my Canon 5D, but produced much better large prints. I think DxO was shipping with the A900 in Europe.

The sensor argument aside. More MPs give RAW processors more information which allows them to produce cleaner images and we have seen more advances in RAW processing than we have in sensor technology over the last 5+ years.
04-25-2013, 12:08 AM   #36
Pentaxian
tabl10s's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sacramento(formerly from B'Ham, England).
Posts: 1,378
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
What about cropping?
Did that in-camera once and was shocked at the loss of MP's. I plan to take the pic right the first time.
04-25-2013, 02:13 AM   #37
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,496
QuoteOriginally posted by tabl10s Quote
Did that in-camera once and was shocked at the loss of MP's. I plan to take the pic right the first time.
Cropping isn't necessarily about missing shots but more along the lines of getting something that isn't normally obtainable. To which I'd add, it looks like there's enough headroom in most lenses to justify 24 or more MP. ie. I made heavy use of cropping in birding.

Last edited by JohnBee; 04-25-2013 at 03:13 AM.
04-25-2013, 03:16 AM   #38
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
The Bayer filter chucks away 2/3 of the light so if a 16MP 'colour' sensor could be developed you wouldn't need 24MP becuase the sensor would use 100% of the light AND show increased resolution (like a foveon) and colour accuracy.

Cameras are used for as many applications as anyone can think of (I believe the latest Martian rover has a 2MP sensor) and I really don't need people telling me what I need either...(Timd: "Nobody needs a better camera."). I am a painter, I gather information with cameras for my large paintings and I require as much detail as I can afford.

Maybe we should all go back to crappy lo-res analog TV? Who's 1st? .. I thought so.

04-25-2013, 09:18 AM   #39
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Now I'm curious, what 24 MP system are you shooting?
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I believe he has a Nikon D7100. That's why I think the K-5 replacement is likely to be 24MP too. D7000/K-5 were almost sisters, D7100/New-K likely to follow the same path.
Yes, correct, the D7100.

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
The Sony A900 was not a "low noise" camera, but its images cleaned up really well.
That is one thing that is really apparent with the D7100. It is a pretty good low noise camera, after clean up (if needed, ISO3200+) the images are pretty amazing with little if any loss of detail.

Back to the print thing - a lot of my gallery work is printed in wide format, 16x9 and 18x8, here are the final outputs:

D7100
16x9 [To Print] = 375ppi
18x8 [To Print] = 333ppi

K5
16x9 [To Print] = 308ppi
18x8 [To Print] = 274ppi

Those are straight size numbers, 90% of the time (with me anyways) there is slight cropping. Before the D7100, most of my gallery work at the print sizes above would end up printing just below the 240ppi mark most aim for, now with the D7100 I am close to 300ppi (and more times over that) on almost everything outputted at those sizes above - that extra detail can be seen immediately and is extremely apparent when viewing prints side by side.
04-25-2013, 02:21 PM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,416
People need to go to a gallery where large high quality prints are on display. People talk about viewing distance and say you don't need a lot of MPs, but watch people in a gallery. A large print with a lot of detail will draw the viewer in. You will see people standing inches away from a poster sized print looking at every detail. That's what you want. Images that engage the viewer and pull them in. Everyone has good subject matter at this level, and everyone is very creative and skilled.

There is a reason people pay $30,000 for a MF camera.
04-25-2013, 02:26 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 3,920
Jpegs can be down-smapled but RAWs are RAWs and are always the full resolution. Storage of large numbers of files will always be a problem

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
There is a reason people pay $30,000 for a MF camera.
Yes. They're rich...

There's a reason I paid $500 for a K200D.......
04-25-2013, 02:36 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Jpegs can be down-smapled but RAWs are RAWs and are always the full resolution. Storage of large numbers of files will always be a problem

Yes. They're rich...

There's a reason I paid $500 for a K200D.......
How did they get rich? I'm sure some started that way, but there are a lot of professional photographers who started at the bottom.
04-25-2013, 03:48 PM   #43
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
My almost 13 year old niece is a huge fan of one of those boy bands. I gave her the old *ist that someone gave me a while back and a P3 film cam and I have been teaching her the basics of photography. She took the *ist with her to a concert and took a pic of her favorite boy in the band. I then obliged her, added print with his name et all to it, then took that photo to the only real photo lab in town, had them make a near life sized poster out of it so she could put it up on the wall next to her bed.

6MP and she got a NICE poster the equal of any similar thing out there professionally done, most likely, only she had the pleasure of taking the photo herself. Good job too. I think someday soon this kid will be better than I am, concert shot, not easy, and folks, she had it on MANUAL the whole time. I am so proud, lol. But I ask you, if 6MP can do that, then what do we all need 24MP for? Unless you're cropping the center detail from a shot taken from 100 feet away and blowing it up to the size of a billboard I think it's actually a bit overkill with how well they can print these days.

It's not like it was 10 years ago. Even home printers can print amazingly detailed images with far less than ideal resolution. I have yet to figure out how they do it given what I was taught in school about dpi et all. It's like magic. 75dpi and you can now make an 8x6 that doesn't look like crap? If they make 24MP they make it and I am sure some people will use it, but I don't think the average shooter today needs that much, no.
04-25-2013, 05:00 PM   #44
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
Unless you're cropping the center detail from a shot taken from 100 feet away and blowing it up to the size of a billboard I think it's actually a bit overkill with how well they can print these days.
A printer prints what is transmitted, nothing more and nothing less, there is no magic printer that takes an image and can magically up the resolution and print a higher-res photo than what it was given. Printer technologies have advanced in the form of print heads and the maximum resolution the printer can print, but again, a printer can not print a higher resolution photo than the file that was sent to it.

In short, a file that is sent to a printer at a given resolution/size is gonna print at the calculated ppi (which is slightly different than dpi and lpi), the higher the ppi the more denser the ink will be (the more pixels will be printed within that square inch) and the more detailed the final output would be, bar none and there is absolutely no cheating this; you can upsample the file but this destroys fine detail.

So no, there is much more use to higher mp cameras than just cropping.
04-25-2013, 05:24 PM   #45
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
Just came across this good reference video, well worth watching if you don't know much about printing and ppi or are confused about it...

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do you shoot 14.6 MP? HappyO Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 04-12-2013 01:09 AM
Official Pentax K3 Full Frame 24 MP Den Pentax Full Frame 16 04-07-2013 02:09 AM
What Do You Really Need On The New Flagship? tabl10s Pentax K-5 21 03-15-2013 07:02 AM
Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France... interested_observer Photographic Technique 25 03-02-2012 11:14 AM
K-5 vs Canon 600D - Do the MP's matter? JohnBee Pentax K-5 38 07-04-2011 02:36 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top