[Clavius]

Because you get more advantages than disadvantages. Diffraction will not get worse on a higher resolution sensor, it will only be more noticable because of the higher resolution.

But a 32MP sensor will probably at least be better than 24MP on these:
- Higer dynamic range
- Lower noise
- Higher resolution (on large aperures where diffraction don't limit resolution)
- Better tonal range
- Less aggresive AA-filter needed (or less risk for moire if used without AA-filter)

All in all a 32MP sensor will improve IQ over 24MP, and diffraction will never make IQ worse on 32MP than with 24MP.

Thanks! Well lets hope Pentax will indeed skip the 24 mp sensor then.

[RonHendriks1966]

a 2x2-pixel binned 8mp high ISO mode would be great for such a sensor!

This would be a good thing. Those new hi megapixel camera's just don't serve you when iso6400 is needed. At that point the K-5 still is the winner.

[dankoBanana]

32 MPs without an AA filter sounds like a winner to me

[northcoastgreg]

All in all a 32MP sensor will improve IQ over 24MP

Perhaps. But that improvement will likely be so small as to be insignificant. Thom Hogan, in comparing the D7000 with the D7100, wrote the following:

Still, despite 22% more resolution and no dispersion impacts from an AA filter, a lot of folk are going to have a very difficult time seeing an improvement in the D7100 over the D7000, even at pixel level. We're getting into a range now where there are continued improvements, but not everyone is going to see them, let alone be able to utilize them. Yes, I can tell that the D7100 results have "an edge" to them that the D7000 didn't. But I'm also trained to see small differences. Frankly, after showing some results to some untrained others, it seemed a bit random as to whether someone saw a difference or not, even at the pixel level. As I write this there's a US$300 differential in price between a new D7000 and a new D7100, or a 33% difference. For a 22% gain that you might not see. That's something we're going to have to think about more and more as we move forward in the digital age.

Although you get a (largely) negligible improvement due to the increased resolution, you also get, on the other side, an (admittedly) marginal decrease in "deep shadow" performance:

Which brings me to the other image quality issue: the banding in the deep shadow detail on these Toshiba sensors (shared with the D5200; see example in my D5200 review). The typical forum poster on other Web sites starts their condemnation of the D7100 sensor by shooting something four or five stops underexposed in raw, then bringing up the "exposure" in their raw converter. Typical result: shadows have some banding in them.

Again, not all that big a deal. But neither is the added resolution. Essentially, there's virtually no real world practical difference between files produced by 16MP Sony sensor and the 24MP Toshiba sensor. The Toshiba sensor, sans the AA filter, gives a bit more resolution; but " in the deep shadows it can't compete with the previous [16MP] Sony sensor."

There is one difference between the two sensors that does verge toward the significant: the Toshiba sensor produces 50% larger files. Now why anyone would wish to increase file sizes by 50% for negligible increase in quality is anyone's guess. At a certain point, there is diminishing returns to adding pixels to APS-C sensors; a 32MP APS-C sensor is simply a marketing gimmick, aimed to snare upgrade junkies and measurebators.

[Rondec]

Perhaps. But that improvement will likely be so small as to be insignificant. Thom Hogan, in comparing the D7000 with the D7100, wrote the following:

Although you get a (largely) negligible improvement due to the increased resolution, you also get, on the other side, an (admittedly) marginal decrease in "deep shadow" performance:



Again, not all that big a deal. But neither is the added resolution. Essentially, there's virtually no real world practical difference between files produced by 16MP Sony sensor and the 24MP Toshiba sensor. The Toshiba sensor, sans the AA filter, gives a bit more resolution; but " in the deep shadows it can't compete with the previous [16MP] Sony sensor."

There is one difference between the two sensors that does verge toward the significant: the Toshiba sensor produces 50% larger files. Now why anyone would wish to increase file sizes by 50% for negligible increase in quality is anyone's guess. At a certain point, there is diminishing returns to adding pixels to APS-C sensors; a 32MP APS-C sensor is simply a marketing gimmick, aimed to snare upgrade junkies and measurebators.

To me, the biggest question is the quality of the pixels. There is a more than expected improvement in my opinion, going from the 14.6 megapixel sensor in the K7 and the 16 megapixels in the K5. On the other hand, 24 megapixel APS-C sensors really don't seem to give that much more resolution in most settings, probably just see it in low isos with lenses stopped down a little. So, 32 megapixels could be better if there is some underlying technology improvement, otherwise all you are doing is dividing current pixels into small noisier pixels.

[Winder]

32MP APS-C sensor is simply a marketing gimmick, aimed to snare upgrade junkies and measurebators.

Do you realize how many times that has been said? 8MP was all any one needed.... then it was 12MP was perfect.... This week 16MP is the magic number.....

[Winder]

Something people need to keep in mind. Even if the 32MP sensor has the exact same S/N ratio as the 16MP (no improvement) it will still produce better images because RAW processor work better with more information. It becomes easier the the software to spot hot pixels or random noise and the images will have a finer "grain" to them.

Most of the IQ improvements we have seen over the last few years has actually come from improvements in RAW processors and firmware. Sensor technology has not changed a whole lot.

[Fogel70]

Perhaps. But that improvement will likely be so small as to be insignificant. Thom Hogan, in comparing the D7000 with the D7100, wrote the following:

Although you get a (largely) negligible improvement due to the increased resolution, you also get, on the other side, an (admittedly) marginal decrease in "deep shadow" performance:



Again, not all that big a deal. But neither is the added resolution. Essentially, there's virtually no real world practical difference between files produced by 16MP Sony sensor and the 24MP Toshiba sensor. The Toshiba sensor, sans the AA filter, gives a bit more resolution; but " in the deep shadows it can't compete with the previous [16MP] Sony sensor."

There is one difference between the two sensors that does verge toward the significant: the Toshiba sensor produces 50% larger files. Now why anyone would wish to increase file sizes by 50% for negligible increase in quality is anyone's guess. At a certain point, there is diminishing returns to adding pixels to APS-C sensors; a 32MP APS-C sensor is simply a marketing gimmick, aimed to snare upgrade junkies and measurebators.

I'm not sure you can draw any conclusion by this, other than maybe Sony produce superior sensors.

I have no doubt that a new 32MP Sony sensor will be a "big" improvements over the 3 year old 16MP Sony sensor (or the 2 year old 24MP Sony sensor). For a top of the line APS-C DSLR Pentax need to use the best possible sensor, even if not all users will be able to use all advantages of it. If you want smaller file size the camera will have 16MP or lower resolution as options. And it surely won't hurt sales it if has the has the highest pixel count on the market.

And Sony will not keep producing 16MP APS-C sensors forever.

[rawr]

Most of the IQ improvements we have seen over the last few years has actually come from improvements in RAW processors and firmware.

Worthwhile point. RAW software (and the PC's that host it) is on an independent development vector. Tools like Lightroom, C1 and DxO have been getting better and better at extracting IQ out of camera RAWs. Even if Sony kept on making the same 16MP K-5 sensor forever, over time RAW software would probably be able to do more and more with the same sensor output

[Chris Mak]

Even if Sony kept on making the same 16MP K-5 sensor forever, over time RAW software would probably be able to do more and more with the same sensor output

So true, the Olympus E1 is having a spell of interest again on the Olympus forum, CO1 gets more out of the 10 year old cameras' raw files than was ever possible before.
But also, surely there comes a moment, that a camera's sensor will be more something of a constant, just like the lenses, simply a performing tool that meets the desired standards, and the emphasis will be mainly on post processing and the rendering of the raw converters.
Actually, the thought of endlessly recycling the sony 16mp sensor for Apsc is already not even thát ridiculous. The quality of the K5IIs output is already such, that with good lenses there is not really much more to improve upon. I find that I'm getting more concerned with the quality of the raw converter, the profile for the camera/lens, shooting technique etc. I am sure that resolution of the Apsc sensor will be increasing for some time to come, and new technologies will improve sensors, but even though it is going to get better and better for some time to come, that doesn't mean that the actual images will continue have the sensor quality as their bottle neck.

[builttospill]

Do you realize how many times that has been said? 8MP was all any one needed.... then it was 12MP was perfect.... This week 16MP is the magic number.....

Good point. 8MP for APS cameras, 12MP for FF, and 16MP for 645D is all we need. Why didn't someone think of this earlier?

Actually, I wouldn't even be interested in 32MP, especially when lenses would show diffraction at f/11 or near that. What in the world would I need that many MP for? Don't say cropping, I frame my subject so I don't need to crop. I'd love a 12MP APS and a 24MP FF from Pentax, both pro bodies.

[Class A]

Diffraction will kick in way early going to 32mp.

Not again.

Diffraction will not get worse on a higher resolution sensor, it will only be more noticable because of the higher resolution.

Correct, diffraction effects will not get worse; they won't even be more noticeable, if you make proper comparisons, such as looking at the whole image, or looking at crops at the same (effective) magnification.

Of course a 1:1 pixel-peeping crop of a 32MP image will look worse than that of a 6MP image, but that's because every image degradation is magnified.

[Aristophanes]

But also, surely there comes a moment, that a camera's sensor will be more something of a constant

Just like film...

[Winder]

We need one more diffraction debate. Preferably by people who don't understand diffraction. Those are the most fun.... and the most common.

It obvious Sony needs to hire most of this forum to help them design sensors.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

We need one more diffraction debate. Preferably by people who don't understand diffraction. Those are the most fun.... and the most common.
It obvious Sony needs to hire most of this forum to help them design sensors.

We also need a /irony emoticon!