[John Poirier]

Sure. The need for high megapixel cameras for "big printing" is over rated, particularly considering that few people will take a magnifying glass to a print that is 36 inches on a side.

I just have a hard time believing that two sharp photos, one shot at 24 megapixels on a full frame camera and the other shot on a 16 megapixel APS-C camera (assuming landscape photo, stopped down, similar framing) would look that much different, or that for most prints, there would be much visible difference.

It depends on how, big. It also depends on the photographer's intentions.

I'm not crazy about large prints, but it seems that big is fab in photography these days. I get that message from galleries. I've also spent time observing the behaviour of the public when prints in varying sizes are on display. What I've observed is that people walk right past prints that I consider to be a reasonable size (12x18 inches, for example) but often stop in their tracks when confronted with a 24x36 of the same image.

I've had good success making 24x36 inch prints from K20D files. Much of my work is highly detailed landscape shots. I require my big prints to look quite sharp even at closer than normal viewing distances. In terms of my personal sharpness expectations, though, 24x36 is about as far as I want to go from the K20D. That is an esthetic decision on my part, not a universal technical rule.

I have a long history shooting medium format film, scanning for 30x40 inch prints and downsizing for the 24 inch ones. I've done some experimenting rescaling medium format scans to 24 megapixel equivalents. It's not a perfect comparison, but my conclusion is that while results from the K20D are adequate, 24 megapixels should be at least slightly but noticeably (perhaps in a subliminal way to non-photographers) better. (Much of the effect of my work is based on a startling, almost surreal level of detail- so every bit helps.)

Because health issues are forcing me to look at lighter gear, I expect I will have to shoot less medium format and more digital beginning sometime in the next year or so. While I can scrape by with the K20D, my preliminary testing indicates that 24 megapixels produces more convincing detail.

36 MP on a full frame sensor? Maybe. I'm waiting to see what informed people say about lens quality requirements for that format. I will also borrow or rent bodies for testing when the time comes.

Whether I continue with Pentax after almost 40 years as a Pentax user depends on what they offer about a year from now. I'm one of the optimists who think a reasonable transition time leading to truly new designs is about 18 months.

Certainly, most people don't need 15 megapixels, let alone 24. However, your individual perception of what you need and your personal opinion of what constitutes adequate sharpness are just that- individual and personal.

I'd be willing to bet that if someone made identical prints from 16, 24, and 36 megapixel sensors and displayed them to a bunch of photographers, one at a time in a blind test, you would see wide differences of opinion on whether the differences in resolution are significant or not. You would probably see agreement that the higher resolution shots were sharper, but there would likely not be agreement on whether the differences were truly meaningul in terms of the viewing experience.

So some people would agree with your assertion about 24 megapixel full frame vs 16 megapixel APS-C. Some would not. Personally, I'll do some testing and decide for myself. For whatever that's worth.

[Pål Jensen]

So some people would agree with your assertion about 24 megapixel full frame vs 16 megapixel APS-C. Some would not. Personally, I'll do some testing and decide for myself. For whatever that's worth.

I can assure you that you cannot tell if not two separate prints of the same subjects side by side preferable shot at the extremes of the sensors performance envelope. The D800 is something else though.
A friend who has a fine art gallery says no one have so far been able to pick the FF images from the APS ones even if we are talking about very large prints. And then we are not even talking K-5 levels of performance.

[Wired]

I appreciate that Pentax is developing too slowly for your own needs, but your statement is not true in an absolute sense.

In March 2013, we'll see a seriously advanced APS-C camera and surely a Pentax FF is being developed as we speak. I have no idea when that Pentax FF will eventually surface, but I guess it won't take more than two years from now.

So Pentax will cater to the semi-professional photographer again, they were unfortunately just a bit too slow to demonstrate that this year.

One could also go 645D to get a professional Pentax camera.

[navcom]

One could also go 645D to get a professional Pentax camera.

It's true...the 645D is an awesome pro-level camera. But the jump between a K5 at $1000 to a 645D at about $9000 without lenses (which would have to be purchased as well) is such a huge jump that it is unrealistic for most people, including many professionals. I can justify a FF Nikon D600 for $2400 (with a lens) but the ROI for a $10K+ purchase is not there. Not that having a medium format digital camera isn't on the wish list...it's just not on the realistic list. And a profitable business runs on a realistic list.

A full-frame D600 is in the realm. I just wish Pentax would have made it. But now I probably will be investing in Nikon lenses in the future. Not only did they loose a camera body sale, they lost a lifelong camera system investor...one that has spent a lot of money on gear...and will no doubt spend more in the future.

Pentax has great equipment but no long-term marketing plan for their loyal customers who want to use their equipment to take things to the next level...without having to jump the ocean in a single bound to a 645. It is ultimately their choice. They have to position their company the way they feel is best for their resources and their brand. But I have a choice too and I made it.

[Wired]

It's true...the 645D is an awesome pro-level camera. But the jump between a K5 at $1000 to a 645D at about $9000 without lenses (which would have to be purchased as well) is such a huge jump that it is unrealistic for most people, including many professionals. I can justify a FF Nikon D600 for $2400 (with a lens) but the ROI for a $10K+ purchase is not there. Not that having a medium format digital camera isn't on the wish list...it's just not on the realistic list. And a profitable business runs on a realistic list.

A full-frame D600 is in the realm. I just wish Pentax would have made it. But now I probably will be investing in Nikon lenses in the future. Not only did they loose a camera body sale, they lost a lifelong camera system investor...one that has spent a lot of money on gear...and will no doubt spend more in the future.

Pentax has great equipment but no long-term marketing plan for their loyal customers who want to use their equipment to take things to the next level...without having to jump the ocean in a single bound to a 645. It is ultimately their choice. They have to position their company the way they feel is best for their resources and their brand. But I have a choice too and I made it.

oh I hear you. I can't justify that, especially at this stage in my career. I can't even justify going to the D600 or D800. I would love too, but rebuying the glass would hurt my wallet, wife, and back too much.

Do I have a need to go FF? Maybe eventually. Right now I just want more MP for the ability to crop and retain large printing abilities. 18x24 sized prints are fantastic!

[Class A]

Pentax has great equipment but no long-term marketing plan for their loyal customers who want to use their equipment to take things to the next level...without having to jump the ocean in a single bound to a 645.

Pentax does have a long-term plan.
It may be too long-term for your personally, but it surely exists.

[rawr]

On the subject of 'pros' and FF, it's worth remembering that until 2007 with the D3 and 2008 with the D700 (not so long ago, really) Nikon never even offered a full-frame DSLR.

Yet before 2007 Nikon still had a full lineup of expensive, high quality APS-C 'pro' bodies and lenses, and were certainly a 'pro' brand with lots of serious 'pro' users, producing lots of serious 'pro' work of all sorts, including lots of 'pro' prints ...

[filorp]

Yet before 2007 Nikon still had a full lineup of expensive, high quality APS-C 'pro' bodies and lenses

canon had FF nikon had decent AF at the time - Pentax hasen't got neither of it. They just woke up with the finger up etc......

[thibs]

Oh, so now it sot the sensor size but the AF, there will always be something we can find if we dig...