Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-02-2015, 07:36 PM   #16
Junior Member
Equus17's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 26
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
It pretty much doesn't matter. I would prefer 16 megapixels over 24. The gain in resolution between the two will be visible only with perfect technique and perfect lenses, but files are bigger from 24mpix sensor.

With a sensor pitch of 4 microns, if you move the camera by 2 microns over exposure time you are back to square one - no difference between 16mp and 24 mp.

Moving 2 microns over 1/100s = 0.2mm movement per second... too little to control hand-held.

What about the lenses? If you shoot with a zoom, you won't see the difference. If you shoot with a very sharp prime (50mm F1.8, Tamron 90mm, Sigma 35mm F1.4) you will, but probably only on tripod.
Then there are focusing errors on top of that.

Higher frequency of sampling (higher resolution) might be useful for printing, because you will have more organic, less pixelated,, enlargements. But since you usually don't have the extra detail, you could up-res it in software and results would be similar.

Lastly, how good photos look depends on the perception of resolution, not the resolution. So proper sharpening, high local contrast at medium resolution (~5-10 lines per mm) and color saturation will, in my opinion, give a more pleasant look.
Wow, thank you for all the info! Goes to show how much I have to learn! :-o

I appreciate your detailed explanation, thank you for taking the time to help. :-)

01-03-2015, 08:44 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,432
I would just say that in the majority of situations, there is not much difference between max printing/viewing size between 16 and 24 megapixel APS-C sensors. Assuming low iso, high quality lens, and perfect technique, you will see a little more detail, but it is not eye opening.

If you really want to print bigger, you are far better using a little longer focal length and stitching several images together.
01-03-2015, 09:34 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
narual's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana
Posts: 1,952
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
If you shoot with a zoom, you won't see the difference. If you shoot with a very sharp prime (50mm F1.8, Tamron 90mm, Sigma 35mm F1.4) you will, but probably only on tripod.
If you are comparing the k5iis with the k3 or the OPs k50 to his entry level nikon, maybe. But the k50 vs the k3 you'd see a noticeable difference from removing the antialiasing filter.


But yeah, printing as small as he's talking about, it won't be noticeable.
01-03-2015, 10:32 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
AquaDome's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New Carlisle, IN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,475
12 MegaPickles is enough. 16 is real nice. 24 means you need a fatter computer.
Most of my "really good" pictures were shot with the 16MP K-50 because it gets to go places where I fear my K-3 might get killed.

01-04-2015, 10:26 AM - 1 Like   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 768
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
Lastly, how good photos look depends on the perception of resolution, not the resolution. So proper sharpening, high local contrast at medium resolution (~5-10 lines per mm) and color saturation will, in my opinion, give a more pleasant look.

Equus17, the 16 MP should be more than fine, even with some (but not huge) cropping and printing large, for reasons already stated here. I linked the quote above because it reminded me of studies done years ago by HDTV makers on the parameters that make for a great TV image. These parameters were, in order: a. Black levels, b. Color saturation, c. Color accuracy, and, lastly, resolution. I see a parallel between a TV image and a photo image. I think rrstuff is spot on.
01-05-2015, 10:54 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,608
Why not do a few test prints? If you don't want to pay for large test prints you have no end use for, you can always print cropped portions at comparable smaller sizes to give you an idea of enlargement quality.

If you don't have any 'real use' pictures you'd like to print yet, you can set up a still life with lots of detail and colour, and get a best case scenario (tripod, mirror lockup, minimum iso, sharpest aperture, etc) to set the bar on technical awesomeness your equipment can produce.
01-05-2015, 11:14 AM   #22
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,241
I'm with everyone else, I bought a 24 MP for cropping wildlife images, if I was able to compose in the viewfinder, I'd still be shooting a K-5. We've once printed 20 inches by 30 inches.. with a 10 MP camera, and we sold 3 of those prints. If people are happy to buy prints at that ratio, you will probably be thrilled with what you get from a K-5.
02-04-2015, 01:59 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Bay Area - California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 103
16mp more then plenty. 24mp I would start to worry about space on your hard disk. Just remember the sensor size and capabilities. The majority of these modern cameras have the same sensor size and all provide similar incredible results. Dslr cameras have already reached a significant apex many years back but people just want to consume and consume. Don't buy into it. Work on your photography skills and taking pictures, that's what matters in the end.

02-05-2015, 11:18 AM   #24
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 912
I have printed a few 24x36 prints out of my K-50. A couple of those were ISO 1600 shots that I processed in Adobe Photoshop from the DNG files. They look pretty amazing. None of them were cropped, though. If the DNG is processed right, the 24x36 ISO 1600 print has a very pleasant looking grain with lots of detail.

I think I could easily do a 30x42 print from an ISO 100 to 400 shot processed from a DNG file. My guess is that it would be pushing the sensor's pixel limits at that size. I'm also guessing that ISO 3200 can probably yield a decent 20x30 & ISO 6400 can probably yield a decent 16x20. Obviously processed from a DNG, but they would be pushing the sensor's noise limits & one's ability to extract the most detail while getting rid of noise to a certain extent in post processing.

Prior to me getting the K-50, I was looking at dropping some serious coin on a Sony A77II, since I had a few A-mount lenses. I was going to get the A77II with the grip for about $900 back in early December, but after comparing images & playing around with the Sony ARW files, I decided that it was too much. The files were too large & the high ISO capability wasn't that great either. I mean, the high ISO is not bad, but compared to other cameras, it was kind of lacking. The SLT design kind of kills the high ISO performance. Then I started looking at the Sony A6000, but it came down to a similar problem. The ARW files were too huge. That & it had no IBIS. Not to mention that the OSS E-mount lenses are super expensive too. I was bummed. Been a Sony shooter for a long time.

I started looking at other cameras. Canon had nothing I wanted. Nikon had nothing. Then I looked at Pentax & saw the K-3 & K-50. After reading reviews on the Internet, I decided that the K-50 was the ticket. It had a lot of bang for the buck features that the other 3 could not offer at a similar price point like weather sealing, IBIS, 2 control dials, 1/6000 shutter speed, & other things. For the price of just a body & kit lens from Sony, Nikon, or Canon, I was able to get 2 K-50s, 4 lenses, & some other stuff too. One for me & one for the wife to go shooting with me. It was a no brainer. One funny thing is that in the end, I'm still technically shooting with a "Sony" camera, since the sensor is made by Sony. I'm a happy guy.

Now to answer your "does size matter" question, it boils down to this. If you are definitely looking at doing 24x36 prints or larger, megapixels do start to matter. However, think of the cost. A 24x36 print is about $25 a pop from Adorama. It starts getting expensive. Also think of the amount of processing power from your PC to get a decent TIFF or JPEG for printing. It all starts adding up. In the end it's all relative. Printing images costs money. How large do you want to print?
02-05-2015, 07:27 PM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Bay Area - California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 103
exactly, i'm glad to hear more people getting the more bang for their buck!
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!
backdrop, clouds, encouragement, factor, friend, haha, images, issues, k-30, k-50, mp, pentax k30, pentax k50, photos, picture, pm, post, print, prints, quality, rule
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does size (lens elements/filter size) really matter? Vantage-Point Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 11-03-2014 05:31 PM
Macro Size does matter..... lightbulb Post Your Photos! 8 09-22-2014 03:05 PM
Professional Photography - Does the Sensor Size Matter Winder Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 10-16-2013 08:15 AM
UWA how much does the size of the lens matter wehavenowaves! Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 06-14-2011 08:56 PM
Size does matter... schmik Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 04-08-2009 06:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 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