[Nicolas06]

Ok - well, accepting that - and I'm not really a technical whizz - why do Nikon and Canon keep the Mp to +/- 20 on their machine guns - really interested to know, not arguing

Action/Sports need also fast shutter speed and quite high iso. The bigger the photosites, the better they perform at high iso. This isn't like you need more than 20Mp anyway.There almost no practical case where the final product displayed on a screen or printed will show noticable difference between 28Mp vs 20Mp.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-10-2017 at 02:24 PM.

[GlassJunkie]

Action/Sports need also fast shutter speed and quite high iso. The bigger the photosites, the better they perform at high iso. This isn't like you need more than 20Mp anyway.There almost no practical case where the final product displayed on a screen or printed will show noticable difference between 28Mp vs 20Mp.

The pain of purists....

Picture a canyon (redrocks) where 24mm wide on a 24MP APSc (36mm view angle) portrait, to capture a 210 degree series of pics of mountains and canyon, to be stitched into a 1.5GB mural to be printed 4x12 feet for a display wall, where folks can walk up to it and see minimal (if any) pixelation or grain... at 10 feet they say "how did they get it like that"....

Or the 3'x5' bird in flight pic where the customer wants no grain, and you need ~800mm of FF reach to capture it or 600mm of APSc reach with 24mp will do after cropping (40% loss in frame fill lost)....

My requestors have unique tastes... IMHO 28MP is better than 20 in FF or APSC.... 32 in APSc vs 36 in FF would change the world.... IMHO

What a fun world we play or work in.....

[Nicolas06]

The pain of purists....

Picture a canyon (redrocks) where 24mm wide on a 24MP APSc (36mm view angle) portrait, to capture a 210 degree series of pics of mountains and canyon, to be stitched into a 1.5GB mural to be printed 4x12 feet for a display wall, where folks can walk up to it and see minimal (if any) pixelation or grain... at 10 feet they say "how did they get it like that"....

Or the 3'x5' bird in flight pic where the customer wants no grain, and you need ~800mm of FF reach to capture it or 600mm of APSc reach with 24mp will do after cropping (40% loss in frame fill lost)....

My requestors have unique tastes... IMHO 28MP is better than 20 in FF or APSC.... 32 in APSc vs 36 in FF would change the world.... IMHO

What a fun world we play or work in.....

You can cover a wall of say 2.5meter high and 3.75 meters long with 24MP and get 40dpi. With pixel shift, that would already look insanely good and I don't think your requirements are that common.

I mean a paid job to get to the right location take the right shoot, waiting the right weather and so on + the gigapixel project + the post processing + the printing is something that I'd expect to cost a few thousand and be billed accordingly. Then why not take a full frame MF digital ? 100MP or even 200MP with technology similar to pixel shift are available meaning you could get up to 120dpi full wall print in a single frame... The files would be much more clean than heavily stiched pixel from a high density sensor with quite average dynamic range and color deph... The productivity gain would allow you to get back home with quite a few keepers instead of one or 2 shots, allows to drastically reduce your PP needs and better serve your customers.

That is if you do that more than once every 10 years, for a one shot project a K20D would do the job just fine.

[Tatouzou]

You can cover a wall of say 2.5meter high and 3.75 meters long with 24MP and get 40dpi. With pixel shift, that would already look insanely good and I don't think your requirements are that common.

I mean a paid job to get to the right location take the right shoot, waiting the right weather and so on + the gigapixel project + the post processing + the printing is something that I'd expect to cost a few thousand and be billed accordingly. Then why not take a full frame MF digital ? 100MP or even 200MP with technology similar to pixel shift are available meaning you could get up to 120dpi full wall print in a single frame... The files would be much more clean than heavily stiched pixel from a high density sensor with quite average dynamic range and color deph... The productivity gain would allow you to get back home with quite a few keepers instead of one or 2 shots, allows to drastically reduce your PP needs and better serve your customers.

That is if you do that more than once every 10 years that is where it wouldn't matter if you do the stich with a K20D...

I agree.
Some people on this forum want a Porsche and will complain if the price tag is higher than for a Dacia.

If your business need very special performance, the customers should be ready to pay for it, and then you can just rent or buy a dedicated gear, even if it is expensive.
If the customers are not ready to pay for it, just explain them they can look at the competition and see that they cannot get what they require for their budget, and they must lower theiir expectations.

[GlassJunkie]

You can cover a wall of say 2.5meter high and 3.75 meters long with 24MP and get 40dpi. With pixel shift, that would already look insanely good and I don't think your requirements are that common.

I mean a paid job to get to the right location take the right shoot, waiting the right weather and so on + the gigapixel project + the post processing + the printing is something that I'd expect to cost a few thousand and be billed accordingly. Then why not take a full frame MF digital ? 100MP or even 200MP with technology similar to pixel shift are available meaning you could get up to 120dpi full wall print in a single frame... The files would be much more clean than heavily stiched pixel from a high density sensor with quite average dynamic range and color deph... The productivity gain would allow you to get back home with quite a few keepers instead of one or 2 shots, allows to drastically reduce your PP needs and better serve your customers.

That is if you do that more than once every 10 years, for a one shot project a K20D would do the job just fine.

Fun to discuss these things...

One small diff... We print at between 2-300 DPI, which is the jaw dropper at that size. You did call i, I used to be a MF 645n guy and scan at 43k, which wasn't bad on slide film, then use fractals. Our mission is to do as little PP as possible (stitching aside). Problem/ opportunity, is I am faithful to Pentax glass.....

[mee]

Problem/ opportunity, is I am faithful to Pentax glass.....

They won't be upset if you look elsewhere.. they're lenses not people. You're not in a relationship with them. If you consider yourself to be in a relationship with your camera lenses, seek help. Immediately.

[GlassJunkie]

They won't be upset if you look elsewhere.. they're lenses not people. You're not in a relationship with them. If you consider yourself to be in a relationship with your camera lenses, seek help. Immediately.

You know, it's funny, I go back to LX vs Nikon F. Glass won, plus the LX was like a Ferrari vs a Unimog... Then I lived through the SFXn days (nice, but EOS looked more appealing, but test rolls of EKTAR in side-by side tests (used Hampton Ct flowers in Teddington), the First Canon lenses weren't crisp. Stuck through the SMCP-F days, was thrilled with FA. I believe the FA* lenses were the best ever made in their class. MZ-s was great, but late... I was also running 645, then 645N, great for landscapes/ flowers, but too noisy for some critters and lousy in the cold (the cold weather batt pack was a dog). Not enough lens reach for birds, too slow to move. Looked at Nikon again when Pentax lagged in digital and their lack of compatibility and obsoleting of lenses 2x was disconcerting. Looked at Canon, lenses were better than Nikon, but I was not impressed with interface....

So like many others, I waited until IST*D came out and rebooted.Traded up once to K-10, finally saw the promise (MP began to make sense) At K-3 limits of some of my old lenses started to show, finally got out of the cave, sold off the 645 MF and AF film gear, and entered the modern age. Since then, my only real desire has been pixel pitch equal to M43 (~30mp) in APSC, better AF and SR2, otherwise the rest of my list comes from "in the field" (arctic cold to wet jungle) learnings. Don't want a Porsche, (I drive used cars), but I wouldn't mind it if Pentax made the same spec and quality leap in the next K-3 that it made in the K-1 and KP.

[sculptor666]

new flagships wish list in the next 5 years
aspc- 40mp 20fps
ff- 60mp 10fps
mf- 100mp 5fps

[monochrome]

FF wish list - not on K-1:

40+ f/2.8 cross-type AF points covering the entire frame. That is all.

[D1N0]

new flagships wish list in the next 5 years
aspc- 40mp 20fps
ff- 60mp 10fps
mf- 100mp 5fps

I'd settle for lenses. Megapixels will come anyway. whether you want them or not. 24 is quite enough for aps-c anyway Full Frame could go up to 54.

[thibs]

Fun to discuss these things...

One small diff... We print at between 2-300 DPI, which is the jaw dropper at that size. You did call i, I used to be a MF 645n guy and scan at 43k, which wasn't bad on slide film, then use fractals. Our mission is to do as little PP as possible (stitching aside). Problem/ opportunity, is I am faithful to Pentax glass.....

Hey, that interests me: what type of scanner did you at the time/and what kind of print size were you able to obtain?
Thanks

[xmeda]

Stop this phantasmagoria. 24Mpix APS-C is the edge. All we can hope for is the RGBW sensor. Red Green Blue White.

FF can go slightly over 50mpix to hit the same edge. But even now we see problems with lenses mounted on EOS 5DS

D5 = 6.41 µm pixel pitch
K10D, K200D, Km = 6.07 µm
Kx, Kr = 5.49 µm
EOS 5DmkIV = 5.36 µm
645Z = 5.32 µm
K20D & K7 = 4.9 µm
D810 & K1 = 4.86 µm pixel pitch and density 4.24 MP/cm²
K5, K30, K50, K-01 = 4.77 µm and 4.39 MP/cm²
A99II = 4.5 µm
KS-2 = 4.29 µm
D500 = 4.2 µm
EOS 5Ds = 4.14 µm

24mpix APS-C K3, K70 = pixel pitch 3.88 µm, and density 6.66 MP/cm²

[vjacesslav]

Maybe K-P wiith its design from K-1 is already TOP aps-c for Ricoh. And substtute fro K-3 II will be new FF... Q is dicontinued completely, and FF is future... APS-C there is already Ks-2, K-p... Smaller FF K-3 II could be smaller and lighter than TOP K-1 and it can easy subsitute any APS-C camera with activated DX button/switch

[monochrome]

Maybe K-P wiith its design from K-1 is already TOP aps-c for Ricoh. And substtute fro K-3 II will be new FF... Q is dicontinued completely, and FF is future... APS-C there is already Ks-2, K-p... Smaller FF K-3 II could be smaller and lighter than TOP K-1 and it can easy subsitute any APS-C camera with activated DX button/switch

We've been over this 100 times. KP has the mid-range control set (buttons, dials, doors, functions). It has many legacy components. It is not the top APSc. There is a flagship in the works for late summer announcement. There is no second FF iteration - K-1 is the FF.

Of course I don't work for RI. I can be completely wrong, but these are points from known informed members.

KP is a 3rd APSc line, between K-70 entry level and flagship, with a smaller form factor to serve (IMO) as an alternative to APSc MILC (the OVF is Pentax's answer to the EVF). A member in Japan went to Yobadashi to try to handle a demonstrator, but no joy. He spoke to a Pentax rep, who said Pentax reps in Japan are 'overjoyed and delighted' with the pre-order for KP. He saw a book of A4 prints which he described as stunning.

PRODUCTS:
Lenses, NOW. - then
GRx. - then
Maybe a surprise. - then
APSc flagship.

Q is not dead - it is on hiatus while Pentax decides where they should go with it.

The earthquake last April messed up the product schedule.

[vjacesslav]

K-P is visually smaller K-1. I think control set is copying the K-1 too. My point is that if you buy more FF sensors it makes much better price for each, and with "DX" crop you can use every lens designed for APS-C size. I wish I am wrong in this