Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-05-2014, 12:30 AM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by donfenix Quote
Also, 24MP is not necessarily always better. In high ISO, you might be better off with 16MP.
Would be curious to understand why?

One thing I've always hated about compacts are the terrible action or indoor shots. So it sounds like what you are saying is that if that is what "bugs" me then stopping at 16mp in favor of speed and low light performance makes sense.

02-05-2014, 12:33 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by donfenix Quote
Also, 24MP is not necessarily always better. In high ISO, you might be better off with 16MP.
Would be curious to hear why.

One of my biggest pet peeves with compacts is poor low light or action pictures. Always missing the good shot of my kids.
So if stopping at 16mp is better for that type of photography I'm all ears.
02-05-2014, 12:55 AM   #18
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Would be curious to hear why.

One of my biggest pet peeves with compacts is poor low light or action pictures. Always missing the good shot of my kids.
So if stopping at 16mp is better for that type of photography I'm all ears.
According to dxomark.com, K-3 is very slightly better than K-50/K-5 for high ISO when resized to the same size. I think the 16mp sensor might give slightly "nicer" noise, but K-3 owners will have to comment on that.
02-05-2014, 01:10 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
Really, people who had owned a k-5/ii/s and now a k-3 would be the best to compare the noise.

02-05-2014, 06:59 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,234
QuoteOriginally posted by donfenix Quote
Also, 24MP is not necessarily always better. In high ISO, you might be better off with 16MP.
To me there is a couple different trains of thought on that. One being that cramming more pixels into a same sized sensor reduces the size and amount of light the photosites (receptors) can gather, which causes more noise than a sensor the same size with less megapixels at higher ISO's, there definitely is merit to this. The second train of thought is cameras have come a long way and so has the software we deal with to handle our photos noise. So with that said, even though you may rightly note more noise with a same crop sensor higher megapixel camera, by having those extra mega pixels your gaining in larger print size with less detail loss, more cropping capability with less detail loss and with today's noise reduction software by giving it more pixel detail to work with your able to correct it with less detail loss.

Since all crop sensor cameras are prone to more noise than a 135mm sized sensor, there is a trade off by what you want to able to perceive at first with noise and what gives you better capability for correction.
02-05-2014, 10:16 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Oldbayrunner Quote
To me there is a couple different trains of thought on that. One being that cramming more pixels into a same sized sensor reduces the size and amount of light the photosites (receptors) can gather, which causes more noise than a sensor the same size with less megapixels at higher ISO's, there definitely is merit to this. The second train of thought is cameras have come a long way and so has the software we deal with to handle our photos noise. So with that said, even though you may rightly note more noise with a same crop sensor higher megapixel camera, by having those extra mega pixels your gaining in larger print size with less detail loss, more cropping capability with less detail loss and with today's noise reduction software by giving it more pixel detail to work with your able to correct it with less detail loss.

Since all crop sensor cameras are prone to more noise than a 135mm sized sensor, there is a trade off by what you want to able to perceive at first with noise and what gives you better capability for correction.
Sounds like that's a pretty good argument for staying at 16 mp - at least for the casual photographer simply taking family and trip photos. I couldn't imagine spending too much time touching up photos.
02-05-2014, 10:33 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Would be curious to understand why?

One thing I've always hated about compacts are the terrible action or indoor shots. So it sounds like what you are saying is that if that is what "bugs" me then stopping at 16mp in favor of speed and low light performance makes sense.
Canon has this new sensor where the pixels are like 7x bigger than the ones on there top pro camera. It is said to be able to shoot video in near darkness because each pixel can "grap more light" (I guess that's the best way to put it.)

The bad part is the sensor is 2.1 megapixels. So, no big poster size prints with that sucker.

here's a link
Canon’s new, high-sensitivity, full-frame sensor captures tiny details of fireflies in extreme low light (VIDEO)
02-05-2014, 10:42 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 402
why not a k-5IIs?

02-05-2014, 10:46 AM - 1 Like   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by OldNoob Quote
why not a k-5IIs?
The pre- set scenes in the k-50 seem to make more sense for a novice first time DSLR owner than getting an older more sophisticated camera.

Also - and this may sound silly but it's important - I have always hated the proprietary batteries and prefer the ability to use AA batteries. Rechargeable NiMH AA batteries are fine and the ability to go into a gas station shop and get alkaline is a big plus when you are out and about.
02-05-2014, 11:06 AM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
The pre- set scenes in the k-50 seem to make more sense for a novice first time DSLR owner than getting an older more sophisticated camera.

Also - and this may sound silly but it's important - I have always hated the proprietary batteries and prefer the ability to use AA batteries. Rechargeable NiMH AA batteries are fine and the ability to go into a gas station shop and get alkaline is a big plus when you are out and about.
the availability of AA is nice. However, the K-50 and K-30 got to 5 fps with those. I like the 6 fps for my kid's sports. Being just before and just after the contact point of the ball is ok, but I want the contact point on some shots. I would have liked to have been able to afford the K5 II for it's 7 fps, but I choose to pick up some additional lenses later on instead.
02-06-2014, 12:56 AM   #26
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Thanks !
What do you mean by 'fast'?

Right now I'm considering the two lens kit - both WR. 18-55 and 50-200.
I might splurge and buy the 18-135 WR instead of those two but its an extra $250 or so on top of the two kit lenses packsge and I think that money can be better used elsewhere as the two kit lens package seems to really discount the lenses.
Fast means large aperture, that is small f number. The smaller the f number, the larger the aperture, the more light-gathering capability, meaning you can take pictures at faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISOs (which means less digital noise). Beyond the ability of taking good pix in low light situations, a side benefit of a large aperture is that you get very shallow depth of field, which will allow you to take nice portrait pictures. Your subject will be in focus and everything behind (or in front) will be out of focus, i.e. blurry. A beginner can easily impress his friends and family with a fast 50 more than with anything else. Why 50? On an APS-C sensor, 50mm gives you roughly the equivalent of a 75mm on a full-frame camera. Why is that important? Because the 70-100mm range in FF equivalent is where you get good perspective for portrait shots. Anything shorter and the nose starts to be too large. Anything longer and the face starts to be too wide and somewhat flat. I'm oversimplifying a little, but that's some of the reasons. That's why on FF the portrait lens of choice is often the 85mm f/1.4 and why Pentax's pro portrait lens in APS-C is the 55mm f/1.4 (which is an 82.5mm FF equivalent).
02-06-2014, 01:10 AM   #27
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Thanks !
What do you mean by 'fast'?

Right now I'm considering the two lens kit - both WR. 18-55 and 50-200.
I might splurge and buy the 18-135 WR instead of those two but its an extra $250 or so on top of the two kit lenses packsge and I think that money can be better used elsewhere as the two kit lens package seems to really discount the lenses.
BTW, get the 18-135. I have all three (18-55, 50-200, 18-135) I never use the 18-55, I very rarely use the 50-200 since I found a 100-300 on eBay for $37. I use the 18-135 all the time as my walkaround zoom. Advantages? Usable range in ONE lens, fast and quiet DC motor, quickshift, hood, WR, not having to constantly change lens, better color rendition than 18-55, superior construction/craftsmanship, well-balanced in hand, etc.
02-06-2014, 01:22 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by donfenix Quote
Fast means large aperture, that is small f number. The smaller the f number, the larger the aperture, the more light-gathering capability, meaning you can take pictures at faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISOs (which means less digital noise). Beyond the ability of taking good pix in low light situations, a side benefit of a large aperture is that you get very shallow depth of field, which will allow you to take nice portrait pictures. Your subject will be in focus and everything behind (or in front) will be out of focus, i.e. blurry. A beginner can easily impress his friends and family with a fast 50 more than with anything else. Why 50? On an APS-C sensor, 50mm gives you roughly the equivalent of a 75mm on a full-frame camera. Why is that important? Because the 70-100mm range in FF equivalent is where you get good perspective for portrait shots. Anything shorter and the nose starts to be too large. Anything longer and the face starts to be too wide and somewhat flat. I'm oversimplifying a little, but that's some of the reasons. That's why on FF the portrait lens of choice is often the 85mm f/1.4 and why Pentax's pro portrait lens in APS-C is the 55mm f/1.4 (which is an 82.5mm FF equivalent).
Thanks! That was very helpful to me.

Something like this lens?


Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens
In Stock
$246.95
-$65.00(Instant Rebate)
-$65.00 (Savings)
$116.95
Select Item
02-06-2014, 10:58 AM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Thanks! That was very helpful to me.

Something like this lens?


Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens
In Stock
$246.95
-$65.00(Instant Rebate)
-$65.00 (Savings)
$116.95
Select Item
I would consider that fast and a great package deal.

That is the lens I plan to buy to shoot my daugter's indoor volleyball. DOF will be something to contend with, but I hope I can shoot around 2.8 and get decent DOF.
02-06-2014, 04:35 PM   #30
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Thanks! That was very helpful to me.

Something like this lens?


Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens
In Stock
$246.95
-$65.00(Instant Rebate)
-$65.00 (Savings)
$116.95
Select Item
Yes, that is what you want. Also at that price, it's a steal, a no-brainer... I have 9 lenses, but the two that I use 80% of the time are my 18-135 and my nifty fifty
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!
55-300mm, camera, hd, k-30, k-50, nikon, pentax k30, pentax k50
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-30 or wait for K-50 K-500 Colbyt Pentax K-30 & K-50 54 08-23-2013 06:17 AM
K-01 Now or Wait for K-5 IIs or K-30? Biro Pentax K-01 10 11-21-2012 09:31 PM
Kx user here - should i go to K-5 or K-30 or wait for K-3 ladybug Pentax K-5 17 08-18-2012 08:39 AM
Should I get a K-01 or wait for the K-30? randesigns Pentax K-01 8 05-25-2012 12:41 PM
Using K-x, should I upgrade to K-r or wait for more money to get K-7 ? hoangtu2410 Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 11-09-2011 07:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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