[IlmarsM]

In this page:
http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_35
Look at sample photo #2 and take full size download - this picture has 17.4mp resolution. Could it mean that we can expect K20D super with new sensor?

[Spongefingers]

Interesting.
Either they do have a 17Mp sensor, or they have just upscaled a 14Mp image to tease us cruelly.
Either way, they deleted the EXIF data, so there's no way of telling.

[roentarre]

Scary thought to have 17 megapixels! Well, see where this leads to.

[philmorley]

one of the other 'sample images' a while back, had been upsized 10%, apparently it is an option that can be turned on by default in many raw convertors. (was discussed heavily in a thread but I can't remember what thread was called). It may just be this again (or it could mean a new sensor )

[ogl]

The most other samples are much smaller...It's strange to post upsized samples.
The full sized are "soapy"...))

[ogl]

PENTAX
the same here

[Priyantha Bleeker]

Yes it could be that they are up scaled versions...

I can't be very pleased with those samples though...

In the picture2 of the 300mm lens, I just can't find the focus point afaik I can't find any sharp point...

Same for picture3 of the 300mm lens, it is just ugly And the NOISE...I certainly hope this is ISO3200 or higher, if not than the noise is very high in my opinion

Only Photo2 from the 35mm looks sharp.

[benjikan]

Spoke to a close acquaintance of mine from the good old days. I think the allegations are a bit off. None the less as we all now know, new stuff will always come out.

Ben

[Blue]

one of the other 'sample images' a while back, had been upsized 10%, apparently it is an option that can be turned on by default in many raw convertors. (was discussed heavily in a thread but I can't remember what thread was called). It may just be this again (or it could mean a new sensor )

That would come out to 18-19 mp though.

[nulla]

if this keeps going we will finish using terabyte sd cards



Neil

[mr.voigtlander]

Maybe they just shot the thing on film and scanned it in!

The obsession with megapixels amuses me when with film you can easily get almost as many megapixels as you want. Want an upgrade? Buy a better scanner, or get a new film.

Yesterday I scanned some film and got 9000 x 6000 pixels @ 300 dpi. So put film in your hands and you can go 54 MP.... I could go higher, but no point

I'm more interested is what other features a pro camera may bring. Until then I'll stay with the the good ol' way.

cheers,

[marlon]

The blind megapixel race continues, and it's even blinder followers run along.
Im with voigtlander, it's friggin' amusing.

[Matjazz]

The blind megapixel race continues, and it's even blinder followers run along.
Im with voigtlander, it's friggin' amusing.

I don't like it either, but I guess that's what makes the sales unfortunately. The good side of it is that pixel density increased only 1,088x. Or perhaps they made a 1.4x crop sensor with same pixel density as K20D (but I doubt it).

[RiceHigh]

There is point to go up in megapixel, as long as the optics can produce the high res, for just one reason: large(r) print

Just say for a 14" x 11" print with 300dpi, effectively, we need at least 4200 x 3300 = 13.44 MP pixel, in totally ideal case. However, owing to the Baylor arrangement of the sensor, actually, the effective resolution in lines (not line pairs) is just around 2400 lines per picture height (i.e., vertically) for the best measured value under the best settings/condition, for the results of many reviews/tests I have inspected.

So, as the K20D has a pixel count of 3104 x 4672, the efficiency is just about 0.77. Hence, if we need to reproduce a true 4200 x 3300 effective resolution for just such a 12R printout, we need a DSLR of effective pixel count of 5455 x 4286 = 23.38 MP!

A 23.38 MP DSLR is just enough for a printout of 300 dpi for a 12R photo! If we want to have 600 dpi or to print beyond 14 x 11, we need more!

Of course, one can say we can keep the viewing distance to be far away enough, but then a 12R photo is not that large indeed so that we can have a closer look (or not just too far away to see the difference), can't we?

Nonetheless, to put even more pixels packed in an APS-C size small format sensor is just crazy, as Samsung has not yet resolved the ever hottest APS-C sensor (issue) used in the K20D!

Maybe they just shot the thing on film and scanned it in!

The obsession with megapixels amuses me when with film you can easily get almost as many megapixels as you want. Want an upgrade? Buy a better scanner, or get a new film.

Yesterday I scanned some film and got 9000 x 6000 pixels @ 300 dpi. So put film in your hands and you can go 54 MP.... I could go higher, but no point

I'm more interested is what other features a pro camera may bring. Until then I'll stay with the the good ol' way.

cheers,

[RiceHigh]

Totally agreed, they don't look good even they are not "samples", especially for the obvious noise that in the image of sample3.

Yes it could be that they are up scaled versions...

I can't be very pleased with those samples though...

In the picture2 of the 300mm lens, I just can't find the focus point afaik I can't find any sharp point...

Same for picture3 of the 300mm lens, it is just ugly And the NOISE...I certainly hope this is ISO3200 or higher, if not than the noise is very high in my opinion

Only Photo2 from the 35mm looks sharp.