[Pål Jensen]

I couldn't care less unless it's full frame, has a It is beyond me why anyone would get excited about a 21MP APS-C sensor.
Why don't people realize there is more to camera quality than a @#&* pixel count.
If people stop cheering about pixel count maybe Pentax would start paying some attention to things that really matter.

The main problem with digital cameras is lack of Pixels. It take Pentax 40mp to have enough resolution to render grass with same texture as a Spotmatic can provide....
Theres more to image quality than accutance...

[K-9]

??? You mean there is no 21mp leak? Why do we have this thread? Remember, Pentax "made" the first 14mp sensor...

I meant official news leaked. Unless you see it advertised for sale, an actual picture of it, or a news write up about it's release, then it ain't official yet.

[Agnostic]

Yeah, shame on those people at Pentax. Why, rather than producing a redesigned magnesium body with improved AF, a 100%-view viewfinder, a super-quiet and fast shutter, 77-segment metering, horizon correction, much improved auto white balance, etc., etc., when it came time to upgrade the K20D, all they did was double the megapixel count. Too bad they can't pay attention to more than that!

Yes and of course when you upgrade a camera it's always a good idea to get the sensor to perform better or at least on the same level as the previous model.... Oh wait, they managed to bring out an upgrade that actually degrades image quality when it comes to dynamic range, noise performance and color depth: Compare cameras

The main problem with digital cameras is lack of Pixels. It take Pentax 40mp to have enough resolution to render grass with same texture as a Spotmatic can provide....
Theres more to image quality than accutance...

Then lets bring out an APS-C camera with 40 Megapixels and see how happy people will be with the image quality. I like the K20D but even at 100 Iso the noise in the blue channel is so bad that b&w post processing is barely feasible even with a yellow filter, not to mention banding. Also the K20D suffers from a lot of shadow noise even at lower ISO. They managed to hide that a little by having a much steeper drop off in dynamic range in the shadows but that results in much worse shadow detail perfomance than competing Nikon models for instance. I have seen some quite dramatic real world comparison photos showing shadow detail loss in one review but I can't seem to find them now. But hey we all know pixel count has no negative impact on noise right, especially in APS-c format so by all means, let's up the megapixels.

[Eigengrau]

Yes and of course when you upgrade a camera it's always a good idea to get the sensor to perform better or at least on the same level as the previous model.... oh wait, they didn't. They managed to bring out an upgrade that actually degrades image quality when it comes to dynamic range, noise and color depth: Compare cameras

Well, sometimes adding new features brings compromise - in this case, I suppose we can surmise that the addition of video and higher FPS shooting came at the cost of slightly noisier pics.

That said, having both cameras, the difference is really not that big at all. For all practical purposes, I can treat images the same and expect similar results from the K7 and K20.

[Deni]

Saying the same thing over and over again.

I agree there's so many pixels one can include in and aps-c sensor.

I've found, when viewing at 100% the images of my K100D are way better than the images of my K-X.

[ghelary]

Saying the same thing over and over again.

I agree there's so many pixels one can include in and aps-c sensor.

I've found, when viewing at 100% the images of my K100D are way better than the images of my K-X.

So basically you compare an image magnified 1.4 more than the other, given the fact that the K-x has double the pixels of the K100D.

A really faithfull comparison would be between prints of the same size. Not sure the K100D would win over K-x in such a test.

[Deni]

So basically you compare an image magnified 1.4 more than the other, given the fact that the K-x has double the pixels of the K100D.

A really faithfull comparison would be between prints of the same size. Not sure the K100D would win over K-x in such a test.

What I'm trying to say is that if there's an increase in the number of pixels, it should be done so that the per pixel sharpness should not be much worse, other wise I'd just extrapolate the images from the K100D.

I've ended up zooming K-X images to 50% (instead of 100% for K100D) in Light Room when checking noise reduction.

[Eigengrau]

What I'm trying to say is that if there's an increase in the number of pixels, it should be done so that the per pixel sharpness should not be much worse, other wise I'd just extrapolate the images from the K100D.

I've ended up zooming K-X images to 50% (instead of 100% for K100D) in Light Room when checking noise reduction.

Well, this isn't really physically possible. You have less photons to work with, and a lens has only so much sharpness to offer.

The only fair comparison is between similarly sized prints. Putting each camera at 100% isn't a very good measurement. Per pixel sharpness isn't the most critical - whether a subject gets rendered accurately is. You could think of it this way: if you have 4 times the pixels, each pixel can be 25% as sharp and still produce an equal result. In reality, you typically have a small tradeoff in per-pixel sharpness but the extra pixels contribute to having more detail and sharpness overall for a given viewing size.

[Deni]

Well, this isn't really physically possible. You have less photons to work with, and a lens has only so much sharpness to offer.

As well as newer technology

So that is what I'm trying to say. The MP war should end when the quality starts decreasing.

[Class A]

If people stop cheering about pixel count maybe Pentax would start paying some attention to things that really matter.

Pentax mindlessly doing what customers cry out for?
That must be why we still don't have tethered shooting for the K-7 / K-x.

Oh wait, they managed to bring out an upgrade that actually degrades image quality when it comes to dynamic range, noise performance and color depth:

The K-7's sensor is very comparable to the K20D's sensor, there is only a slight loss of IQ. This was accepted as a compromise to achieve a higher frame rate and offer video. Makes sense to me, although I also wish the shadow noise would be better.

But hey we all know pixel count has no negative impact on noise right, especially in APS-c format so by all means, let's up the megapixels.

That's right. The noise problems of the Samsung sensors stem from their particular implementation choices (GordonBGood on DPReview has all the details). It has nothing to do with 14.7MP being too many.

The MP war should end when the quality starts decreasing.

That means, not anytime soon.

[jpzk]

Isn't it a fact that regardless of the number of megapixels, the captor's photosites SIZE do matter? So, why come up with a 21 MP sensor if the photosites remain small? Tell me if I am wrong but perhaps a 14MP sensor with larger photosites would do a better job than a "pushed" 21 MP sensor with still-small-photosites???
I checked this out and this link here explains it well:
Unravelling Sensor Sizes, digital cameras, digital photography, photography, digital slr, camera recommendation, price comparison, photographic companies, camera companies, digital camera best prices,

JP

[Eigengrau]

You are right that the photosite size matters, but that can be misleading, because generally filling the same amount of space with more pixels has the net effect of increasing image quality and decreasing noise, when viewed at a given size, even though per pixel quality would be lower.

So, photosite gets smaller, but usually the additional resolution makes up for it and you end up increasing sharpness and IQ and DR and all that good stuff.

Now, the one kink in this is a camera like the D700 - the sensor there seems to suggest that low pixel density is better for noise. However, I'm not sure if that is the tradeoff, or if instead Nikon just asked the sensor manufacturer to put all the development resources it would normally put towards resolution instead towards dynamic range and sensitivity. Need to find out more...

[dosdan]

Isn't it a fact that regardless of the number of megapixels, the captor's photosites SIZE do matter? So, why come up with a 21 MP sensor if the photosites remain small? Tell me if I am wrong but perhaps a 14MP sensor with larger photosites would do a better job than a "pushed" 21 MP sensor with still-small-photosites???
I checked this out and this link here explains it well:
Unravelling Sensor Sizes, digital cameras, digital photography, photography, digital slr, camera recommendation, price comparison, photographic companies, camera companies, digital camera best prices,

JP

She doesn't really come to any definite conclusion. This link is better:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1070917-post110.html


Dan

[Turo]

I don't know if this is too off topic or if I'm drawing too many conclusions, but...
Samyang 14mm
I don't know if anyone has already noticed this, but in the Samyang lens specs charts they give a FF FOV equivalence for Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax mount, for 4/3 and NX they don`t obviously.
This leads me to think the following:
a) They don't know that Pentax doesn't have in production any FF or film camera.
b) They know they will have one.
c) It's a mistake!
What do you think?

[gazonk]

a) They don't know that Pentax doesn't have in production any FF or film camera.

There are K-mount film cameras in production.