[wkraus]

When you display (screen, print, etc.) an image you often have important details everywhere, so a lens that has amazing center resolution but is worse in the corners is useful only for very limited applications. In particular I find it annoying when I can detect a difference in resolution across the frame - like when there is a treeline across the image and I can see detail in the branches in the center but not on the edges.

I tend to agree, for some subjects at least, like the tree line you mentioned. But how on earth did we get here?

[biz-engineer]

I find it annoying when I can detect a difference in resolution across the frame - like when there is a treeline across the image and I can see detail in the branches in the center but not on the edges.

That's what happens when zooming in at 100%, but that's not how photographs are looked at when printed.

[BigMackCam]

When you display (screen, print, etc.) an image you often have important details everywhere, so a lens that has amazing center resolution but is worse in the corners is useful only for very limited applications. In particular I find it annoying when I can detect a difference in resolution across the frame - like when there is a treeline across the image and I can see detail in the branches in the center but not on the edges.

In previous generations corner softness was expected. Perfect lenses are both more expensive and more costly than many of us can afford.

That's what happens when zooming in at 100%, but that's not how photographs are looked at when printed.

Whilst I like borders and corners to be decently sharp in some situations, there's a lot of character imbued by less-than-perfect lenses that can be lost by a lens with a really flat field and amazing sharpness right across the frame. There are use cases for such lenses, for sure, but they're not required - nor are they necessarily advantageous - for a lot of photography, IMHO, even when reproducing at large dimensions. I've yet to view a large, exhibited print from the 50s or 60s (for example) where I've been looking at the borders and corners to see how sharp and detailed they are. Instead, I'm enjoying the overall aesthetic and message of the image. Just because we have the ability to see optical imperfections by editing at 100%+ reproduction, and the ability to achieve near-perfection by using expensive, massively corrected lenses, doesn't mean the final image will be "better". Often-times, that correction is improving technical optical performance at the expense of what we subconsciously perceive as character...

[house]

That's what happens when zooming in at 100%, but that's not how photographs are looked at when printed.

Depends on the lens. With the 15mm Ltd it can be visible at rather small prints. It also depends on your photography style/subject, for some it won't matter for some it will.

[reh321]

When you display (screen, print, etc.) an image you often have important details everywhere, so a lens that has amazing center resolution but is worse in the corners is useful only for very limited applications. In particular I find it annoying when I can detect a difference in resolution across the frame - like when there is a treeline across the image and I can see detail in the branches in the center but not on the edges.

When I shot slides, I sat viewers at or behind the projector. I wanted people to see the scene as I photographed it; today, I really don't want people to peek at pixels. Frankly, I doubt if anyone has ever studied each tree at the pixel level and therefore been able to see any difference like that.

[RobG]

Why are we talking about a 26MP sensor when Canon has a 32MP APSC sensor?

[beholder3]

Why are we talking about a 26MP sensor when Canon has a 32MP APSC sensor?

For the same reasons that a Canon forum may talk about a Canon 50 mm lens while Pentax already has a 43 mm lens.

[Rondec]

Whilst I like borders and corners to be decently sharp in some situations, there's a lot of character imbued by less-than-perfect lenses that can be lost by a lens with a really flat field and amazing sharpness right across the frame. There are use cases for such lenses, for sure, but they're not required - nor are they necessarily advantageous - for a lot of photography, IMHO, even when reproducing at large dimensions. I've yet to view a large, exhibited print from the 50s or 60s (for example) where I've been looking at the borders and corners to see how sharp and detailed they are. Instead, I'm enjoying the overall aesthetic and message of the image. Just because we have the ability to see optical imperfections by editing at 100%+ reproduction, and the ability to achieve near-perfection by using expensive, massively corrected lenses, doesn't mean the final image will be "better". Often-times, that correction is improving technical optical performance at the expense of what we subconsciously perceive as character...

The bigger issue with lenses is not sharpness, but contrast. I have had plenty of time where a lens was sharp enough but had poor contrast/micro contrast out of camera. This particularly has seemed to be an issue with Sigma lenses. I'm sure their coatings have improved over time and it may not be an issue right now, but I find that way more important than sharpness.

[JPT]

Why are we talking about a 26MP sensor when Canon has a 32MP APSC sensor?

I agree. As I said back on page 4, I don't believe the top Pentax APS-C will use the 26MP sensor. The new battle ground for APS-C will be around 30MP. The 26MP sensor is positioned lower. It would be just right for a K-70 replacement though.

It's interesting that we also have a rumor today about two new Sony APS-C G-series lenses. I'm sure those are designed for a better Sony sensor that will be in their high-end model, and possibly an APS-C model of the Nikon Z. We haven't seen that sensor yet. Fuji is also slow to update their two top models (X-Pro and X-H1). I think they'll be waiting for it too.

Pentax is getting ready for higher resolutions with the DA* 11-18 and the standard zoom on the roadmap. These and the new Sony lenses need to have their peak image quality closer to open aperture because of the pixel density on these sensors.

I think the next year or so is going to be quite interesting for APS-C camera releases.

---------- Post added 08-28-19 at 10:47 PM ----------

That was quick - I'm proved wrong within minutes!

Both new Sony cameras are 24MP.

I still think we'll see higher resolution sensors soon,

[Chris Mak]

The 90D that Canon just announced (in tandem with mirrorless cousin M6II) sure looks like the camera that I hoped Pentax would make as K3 successor. Canon may yet make an even higher end version with this sweet sensor to replace the 7DII.

[RonHendriks1966]

Pentax is getting ready for higher resolutions with the DA* 11-18 and the standard zoom on the roadmap.

I think the project of the DA* 11-18 started long ago. That may even be in time of K-5 with the 16mp sensor. So I don't think there is any relation between this new lens and going up in the megapixelrace.

[beholder3]

The bigger issue with lenses is not sharpness, but contrast. I have had plenty of time where a lens was sharp enough but had poor contrast/micro contrast out of camera. This particularly has seemed to be an issue with Sigma lenses. I'm sure their coatings have improved over time and it may not be an issue right now, but I find that way more important than sharpness.

Side comment:
While we talk about it all the time there is practically no robust definition of "sharpness" out there as this is a term highly dependend on subjective human visual perception.
The best approximation I ever found was that it is a mixture (of unknown weighing) of detail resolution (high frequency contrast, e.g. MTF10, MTF20 or so) and micro contrast (low frequency contrast, e.g. MTF30 or higher).

And yes, older lenses with older coating types usually fail on the micro contrast side, while their detail resolving power is not bad.

[Karen the Star]

This is what I'm afraid about, after Canon, $ony just release a6600 & a 6100, and new lens for it, a signal shows that $ony will going to focus on APS-C in the future, what make me surprise is 0.02 second AF, I'm afraid even Pentax release an amazing APS-C flagship, all good functions are done by other brands so there's no really "amazing" any more.
What Pentax actually chasing on is High Peak Pixel, video and AF speed and accuracy. and They are all been done by Canon and $ony now.

[Serkevan]

I took a look at some of the samples from DPR... I'm not impressed by this new sensor. It's grainy -like, very grainy. At least, the JPEGs (haven't had the time to check the RAWs) look pretty bad at pixel level. What's the point of extra cropping ability if it's going to look worse than the equivalent size of a lower-res sensor?

EDIT: Lol, the a6600 is $1400 of the worst ergonomics all over again. Will they ever bother with something that people can *use*?
EDIT 2: Lol twice, same sensor with slightly better AF, all for the low low price of more money than a K-1.

[BigMackCam]

This is what I'm afraid about, after Canon, $ony just release a6600 & a 6100, and new lens for it, a signal shows that $ony will going to focus on APS-C in the future, what make me surprise is 0.02 second AF, I'm afraid even Pentax release an amazing APS-C flagship, all good functions are done by other brands so there's no really "amazing" any more.
What Pentax actually chasing on is High Peak Pixel, video and AF speed and accuracy. and They are all been done by Canon and $ony now.

We've sort of discussed this before in other threads, Karen. Don't be afraid. Go with the flow, live in the now. Ricoh will take Pentax in whatever direction and at whatever pace it decides is best, as has been the case for some years now. And common wisdom suggests this won't be to compete with the likes of Canon, Sony etc., but rather to the beat of its own drum. When the next new camera is released, we - the potential buyers - will vote with our wallets. That's the only meaningful thing we customers can do to influence Ricoh. There's zero benefit to worrying about it