[jatrax]

The number of megapixels is a main selling point for cameras. It is one of the few specs which are drilled into the minds of the general public and the only thing they know.

And strangely more important at the entry level than on the upper end as high buyers tend to be more educated about such things.

[Smeggypants]

And strangely more important at the entry level than on the upper end as high buyers tend to be more educated about such things.

While I agree you're correct on that I can't help thinking the psychology of "bigger number is better" still eats away at even the most educated snapper. - IOW even though there's no rational reason why more MPs should be better it's still a bigger number isn't it?

[audiobomber]

Even the DXO measurements almost back up my real world experience ( showing nearly 3 stops @ ISO100 ), although I claim better performance on my models at higher ISOs.than they do.

K-5 v. K-20D - see Dynamic Range Tab

Clearly you don't understand the graphs. At ISO 100 the K20D shows a SNR of 39.3dB vs. 40.8 for the K-5. That's a difference of 1.5dB. One stop of noise is 6dB, so at ISO 100 there's only 1/4EV difference.

The highest level at which DXOMark considers an acceptable threshold of noise is ISO 639 for the K20D vs. ISO 1162 for the K-5. That's a difference of 0.82, i.e. less than one stop.
DxOMark - Use Case Scores

I don't know what you're looking at, maybe in-camera jpegs with differing amounts of noise reduction. You won't find any tests to back up your wildly exaggerated "experience".

[RonakG]

The number of megapixels is a main selling point for cameras. It is one of the few specs which are drilled into the minds of the general public and the only thing they know.

That's a sad reality. My friend was researching for his first DSLR and had narrowed down to Nikon D5200. He asked me if it's a good choice. I casually told him that for the same budget he can get the D7000 right now which is one segment above and is heavily discounted.

Guess what was his first reaction - "But it has only 16 megapixels."

[RobA_Oz]

Clearly you don't understand the graphs. At ISO 100 the K20D shows a SNR of 39.3dB vs. 40.8 for the K-5. That's a difference of 1.5dB. One stop of noise is 6dB, so at ISO 100 there's only 1/4EV difference. DxOMark - Use Case Scores

The highest level at which DXOMark considers an acceptable threshold of noise is ISO 639 for the K20D vs. ISO 1162 for the K-5. That's a difference of 0.82, i.e. less than a stop.

I don't know what you're looking at, maybe in-camera jpegs with differing amounts of noise reduction. You won't find any tests to back up your wildly exaggerated "experience".

I'm sure the DXO testing is objective in many aspects, but subjectivity enters into what is an "acceptable" noise threshold. It seems clear to me that you two are arguing about the definition of acceptability of noise.

PS: I realise you can possibly compare different sensors using the same definition, but is the difference necessarily constant with threshold? The sensor resolution will probably play a part in determining what is acceptable, too, because the noise will be more finely distributed for a higher resolution sensor of the same format. It would be useful to see some literature on this.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Am I missing something here? I really can't see the problem with changing the ISO on a K-5. Press button with finger while scrolling with thumb: simples! Anyway, for my type of photography (usually set at the lowest ISO of 80), ISO is the least changed parameter, and I really can't see the need for an extra dial.

[Bcrary3]

I agree, the design is very canon'ish.
I much more prefer the strict-spartan design of the K-5.

Second that.
To me a design like this is too Canon like, and it also somewhat reminds me of the K-10 (which at first was an amazing looking camera... Until I saw the K-5). Be this real or not, I think Pentax should avoid the rounded 'sleek' bodies (like Canon) as it is not very appealing (to me) I prefer the somewhat box-ier look of the K-5. It looks cleaner, and it looks like a camera is supposed to, not like some futuristic blob. The same thing happened with cars, they started out boxy, then went to the super round 'sleek' look (which in a car looks nicer ) then back to the boxy look and back to the round look. This should not happen with cameras. I don't need a camera body with lots of curves! Just a nice, classic 'box like' design.... Like the K-5... (if it were up to me, I'd keep the look of the K-5 in all future 'pro' cameras from Pentax).

[Bcrary3]

That's a sad reality. My friend was researching for his first DSLR and had narrowed down to Nikon D5200. He asked me if it's a good choice. I casually told him that for the same budget he can get the D7000 right now which is one segment above and is heavily discounted.

Guess what was his first reaction - "But it has only 16 megapixels."

Well, I mean... Don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes in a camera that has a higher resolution, you'll see a difference in IQ. That happened when I upgraded from the K10D to the K-5. Granted the K10D is a 10mp CCD sensor and the K-5 is a 16mp cMOS sensor.
When I was buying a replacement to the K10D (I had my eye set on the K-5 since the day it was released but looked into other options at the time of purchase) Nikon and Canon both have cameras in a similar price range with 18 and 24 mega pixel cMOS sensors, but then I thought about it, and it is in my own honest opinion that anything beyond 16mp the difference in IQ at the point really becomes marginal. Unless of course you're blowing it up to some obnoxious size (I think 16mp is something like 4928x3264 pixels which is something like 20.5x13.5 inches) and you can easily get ultra high quality prints up to 20x24 (if not even bigger) and typically they're not going to be enlarged that much.. So, really 16mp is fine. Now, I did look at higher resolution cameras in the same price range, but looking at them, you may be getting a 'better' sensor, but not a better camera. In all honesty I'd much rather be the guy who goes around with the $1,200 camera and the really good glass rather than the guy with the Canon 1DX (and its fancy 10 frames per second) and really cheap budget glass. You're more likely to get better image quality out of a cheaper camera body and good glass rather than an expensive camera body and cheaper glass (glass lasts much longer than a camera body).

I guess moral of the story, look at other aspects rather than just the resolution of the sensor, body material and features are very important also. Also, unless you've got serious cash to drop an a good Nikon or Canon setup, buy a cheaper body and good glass. It'll serve you better rather than the other way around.

Cheers

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Guess what was his first reaction - "But it has only 16 megapixels

Why settle for fewer pixels when one can have more - everything else being equal, of course (which it never is)? The D5200 sensor seems to be as good as that in the K-5 II, and has 67% more pixels, which allows for greater cropping or bigger enlargements. I am aware of the arguments regarding processing times and buffer sizes, but fps is not a great factor in a lot of people's photographic needs - if it is, then one would chose a camera on this criterion. Everything in photography is a compromise, so one pays one's money and one takes one's choice.

[Uluru]

Clearly you don't understand the graphs...

From DXOMark:
Dynamic range of the K7 (landscape) = 10.6 Evs
Dynamic range of the K5 (landscape) = 14.1 Evs
14.1 – 10.6 = 3.5 EV
1EV = 1 stop.

"Maximum dynamic range is the greatest possible amplitude between light and dark details a given sensor can record, and is expressed in EVs (exposure values) or f-stops, with each increase of 1 EV (or one stop) corresponding to twice the amount of light."

[Fogel70]

What if we got a jog dial like on the Canon or K10 on the back you could set for iso, then have the two command dials. The jog dial would take up very little room and still allow the center to have the four way selector and middle button.

It would be difficult to fit a jog dial on a K-5 sized body. I think it would be easier to fit a third dial on the front, behind the shutter button. The controls on back of the K-5 is already squeezed to bit tight to fit a jog dial. The AF point switch is already too small, so I would prefer to have a K10D design on that rather than a jog dial.

It's mostly in M and P modes a third dial for ISO would be of any benefit, as you can have ISO controlled directly by front or rear dial in Av, Tv and Sv.

[tclausen]

Actually, I haven't heard that in quite a while. When people comment on my camera, if they know what a DSLR is and I have the DA70 mounted, they usually look a little confused and ask if it really is a DSLR. If they know little about cameras and I have the DA16-45 mounted, they often comment that it "looks like a paparazzi lens" :-)

Hm, funny...yesterday morning, I had a colleague ask that very question "how many megapixels does it have?" about the K-01 40/2.8Ltd combo I had along.

I had to actually pause, and uttered 12....or maybe 16, I dunno (I since looked it up, the 12Mpix is the Q) to which he said "No, I've seen the pictures on your website, they're so good that has to be at least 24Mpixel".

So I guess it follows that size doesn't matter, if you know what you're doing with it, but (like that other thing) bigger is perceived like better and more desirable by others....I'm talking about pixel-count, of course

[theperception2008]

Well for external controls, a rocker switch could serve as a multifunction controller and take up little space like the one on the GR. It works as ev comp while shooting, and it controls magnification reviewing images. For a Dslr, it could be used for fast iso access by simply pressing it up or down until the appropriate ISO is selected.

As for external controls, I just wish my Kr had a front scroll wheel and Tav mode :-( Oh well.

[theperception2008]

Hm, funny...yesterday morning, I had a colleague ask that very question "how many megapixels does it have?" about the K-01 40/2.8Ltd combo I had along.

I had to actually pause, and uttered 12....or maybe 16, I dunno (I since looked it up, the 12Mpix is the Q) to which he said "No, I've seen the pictures on your website, they're so good that has to be at least 24Mpixel".

So I guess it follows that size doesn't matter, if you know what you're doing with it, but (like that other thing) bigger is perceived like better and more desirable by others....I'm talking about pixel-count, of course

I try to teach all my friends basics of sensor tech and how megapixels are not the only measurement that's important... however when I start talking about the photons, they seem to quickly change the conversation... -_- people just don't have patience :-P

P.S. The best discussion on sensor technology and understanding that I have had was with a patient with Asperger Syndrome during my psychiatry rotation. I'm not sure what this means though.

[Racerdew]

I shoot real estate photography with a K-5 IIs. Yes it is a 16 MP camera abut I have it set at 10 MP. The files are just to large and I don't need those giant files. The 10 MP are just as sharp and do not lack. No one has every asked me for a bigger picture. It is already bigger than what they can see on a computer and what they can print. I don't want monster megapixel cameras. They just kill hard drives. I will take 300 to 400 shots on a photo shoot. I edit what I want and keep about 30 pictures and delete the rest. The sensor quality is what matters not the size of the pixels.