[Dan Rentea]

That why all brands of cameras tend to make all rounder cameras and photographers have to deal with performance compromises.

Workhorse cameras are the best for the majority of photographers (in my opinion). They don't have the compromises of entry level cameras and they are not too far behind in terms of performance to flagships. The way some people think it's a bit strange to me because in their mind they need the best camera for everything they shoot and by thinking this way they won't be happy regardless of the camera they purchase. Going up in the number of mp means (in my opinion) going to the specialized category rather than going for the majority of photographers.

My workflow when comes to sending the images to clients clients is:
- one folder has the images resized for social media (2048px)
- one folder has the larger files which are resized to 4k resolution (4096px)

I photographed a Christmas corporate brunch in December and as I always do, I sent first the resized for Facebook images to my clients so that they can use them straight away on social media. The large files I sent them the next day. I had to leave town the next day for a business trip and I called my client to ask him if it's ok to send the large files next day. He said he doesn't need the large file so if I do want to send them, I can send them when I want. 80% of my clients (I'm talking about corporate events) don't need the large files. The ones they ask for the larger files are (until now) 100% satisfied about the 4096px resolution.

In my contract with clients there is a section where they can choose the size of the images. I use it mostly for corporate portraits (or for example, for the dental surgery I photographed recently) and for each resolution is specified also the maximum print size for best quality. This allows my clients to buy the package they need.

Given these real life experiences I realized that a workhorse camera is best for the majority of situations, at least for me. A higher mp camera would be way overkill for me (and I'm not talking about price, I'm talking about workflow), the high speed of sport oriented cameras won't help me either and entry level cameras would make me work harder to get the job done.

I wonder if it would be such a bad idea for Ricoh to release a 2000$ lower mp full frame workhorse camera (let's say a 26mp or 28mp camera since the 24mp sensor seems doomed ) and keep also in the market the 36mp K-1 Mark II for the ones who need a little more mp instead of replacing the K-1 Mark II with a 45+mp camera and keep only one full frame in the market.

---------- Post added 01-12-20 at 01:23 PM ----------

One thing about megapixels (though I am not sure about this), but I think you also need additional power to process large RAW files, at least I do on my potato of a machine. I notice a significant difference when processing even a 20mb jpg vs a 40mb DNG, so with more meagpixels = more stress on the hardware of the machine, so you're also spending more $$ to cope with the megapixels (true or false? it feels like that).

And I dunno about memory being cheap. I can't use the cloud storage so I carry my backups with me everywhere, currently using a 2TB Extreme Sandisk portable SSD, that thing ain't cheap! So yeah I do understand some memory is cheap, but not all is...

Once you add 2000+ images in Lightroom from a 45mp camera you will need extra coffee to edit the files if you don't have a very powerfull computer.

The UHS-II memory cards aren't cheap either and you need 128Gb memory cards for those 60mp files. It's 200$ a 128Gb SanDisk Extreme Pro memory card at B&H and for clients you shoot at both cards and you would need to buy 4 of them because 2 may not be enough for a wedding. Right here we have additional 800$. And as you mentioned, the portable hard drives aren't cheap either and 2Tb won't last too long with 45mp cameras.

And it's way harder to get sharp portraits at wide aperture with high resolution cameras. Each "mistake" will amplify the errors. It's full the internet with people who go from 24mp to 45mp cameras and say their images aren't sharp as they should be. The demanding sensor needs more attention when shooting and when you're in the field instead of a studio you don't have time or the great conditions from studio. Imagine shooting the upcoming Olimpics with a 45mp or with a 61mp camera at 20fps. It will be a nightmare due to the amount of extra work to get sharp images.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 01-12-2020 at 06:46 AM.

[WorksAsIntended]

At the current time I agree on 4k to be enough for 98% (made up number) of usage.
For me 12mpx are enough, so there is a little bit of crop possibility left.

---------- Post added 01-12-20 at 06:32 AM ----------

I run a 2008 iMac and notice the difference between image size.... K3 is a short black coffee.... whilst a K1 opens up latte or capachino possibilities. When using DXO prime noise reduction I can knock out a bowl of pasta. A faster machine like Xeon 6252 and I'd likely starve.... or at least dehydrate.

I can still make a sandwich during import from sd.

[Dan Rentea]

The whole megapixel thing is a red herring. Low megapixel cameras do not necessarily shoot that much faster frame rates (unless you pay a bunch for a sensor with a fast read out speed). The D850 (with the grip) can do 9 fps at 46 megapixels with buffer of 50-ish RAW images. That's better than the D780 is going to be able to do.

As you pointed out, D850 needs a grip to shoot 9fps. This means already 400$ for extra 2 fps and it needs also another 400+$ more for fast and large memory cards.

D780 shoots 7fps and in case you have occasions where a few more fps are needed, you can switch to live view and shoot at 12fps.

Sony A7 III shoots at 10fps. Both A7 III and D780 are 1300$ cheaper than D850 or A7R IV. Given that K1's release price was 2000$, a new 2000$ workhorse camera may be possible.

In point of fact, a camera like the A9 has less dynamic range below iso 12K than the K-1 II.

You chose to pick the flagship which is a niche product. Sony A7 III has better dynamic range and high ISO than K1. Let's wait and see the D780 results.

[Rondec]

As you pointed out, D850 needs a grip to shoot 9fps. This means already 400$ for extra 2 fps and it needs also another 400+$ more for fast and large memory cards.

D780 shoots 7fps and in case you have occasions where a few more fps are needed, you can switch to live view and shoot at 12fps.

Sony A7 III shoots at 10fps. Both A7 III and D780 are 1300$ cheaper than D850 or A7R IV. Given that K1's release price was 2000$, a new 2000$ workhorse camera may be possible.



You chose to pick the flagship which is a niche product. Sony A7 III has better dynamic range and high ISO than K1. Let's wait and see the D780 results.

Of course. But if I could have 7 fps, 40-ish megapixels and a 30 shot buffer with decent clearing speed I would be very happy. I guess everything is about balance. For most people, even 7 fps is probably overkill. You come down to the question of whether you would like to delete more photos (with 12 fps) or bigger photos (with 46 megapixels).

Anyway, having used Pentax live view, the idea of having really fast frame rates in conjunction with that sounds miserable to me. I am OK with their PDAF, but any sort of tracking with live view is a failure. Being able to shoot 12 fps where only the first image is (maybe) in focus doesn't sound like a big selling point, but it certainly could produce some artistic photos...

---

Last edited by Rondec; 01-12-2020 at 02:08 PM.

[H. Sapiens]

Workhorse cameras are the best for the majority of photographers (in my opinion). They don't have the compromises of entry level cameras and they are not too far behind in terms of performance to flagships. The way some people think it's a bit strange to me because in their mind they need the best camera for everything they shoot and by thinking this way they won't be happy regardless of the camera they purchase. Going up in the number of mp means (in my opinion) going to the specialized category rather than going for the majority of photographers.

My workflow when comes to sending the images to clients clients is:
- one folder has the images resized for social media (2048px)
- one folder has the larger files which are resized to 4k resolution (4096px)

I photographed a Christmas corporate brunch in December and as I always do, I sent first the resized for Facebook images to my clients so that they can use them straight away on social media. The large files I sent them the next day. I had to leave town the next day for a business trip and I called my client to ask him if it's ok to send the large files next day. He said he doesn't need the large file so if I do want to send them, I can send them when I want. 80% of my clients (I'm talking about corporate events) don't need the large files. The ones they ask for the larger files are (until now) 100% satisfied about the 4096px resolution.

In my contract with clients there is a section where they can choose the size of the images. I use it mostly for corporate portraits (or for example, for the dental surgery I photographed recently) and for each resolution is specified also the maximum print size for best quality. This allows my clients to buy the package they need.

Given these real life experiences I realized that a workhorse camera is best for the majority of situations, at least for me. A higher mp camera would be way overkill for me (and I'm not talking about price, I'm talking about workflow), the high speed of sport oriented cameras won't help me either and entry level cameras would make me work harder to get the job done.

I wonder if it would be such a bad idea for Ricoh to release a 2000$ lower mp full frame workhorse camera (let's say a 26mp or 28mp camera since the 24mp sensor seems doomed ) and keep also in the market the 36mp K-1 Mark II for the ones who need a little more mp instead of replacing the K-1 Mark II with a 45+mp camera and keep only one full frame in the market.

---------- Post added 01-12-20 at 01:23 PM ----------



Once you add 2000+ images in Lightroom from a 45mp camera you will need extra coffee to edit the files if you don't have a very powerfull computer.

The UHS-II memory cards aren't cheap either and you need 128Gb memory cards for those 60mp files. It's 200$ a 128Gb SanDisk Extreme Pro memory card at B&H and for clients you shoot at both cards and you would need to buy 4 of them because 2 may not be enough for a wedding. Right here we have additional 800$. And as you mentioned, the portable hard drives aren't cheap either and 2Tb won't last too long with 45mp cameras.

And it's way harder to get sharp portraits at wide aperture with high resolution cameras. Each "mistake" will amplify the errors. It's full the internet with people who go from 24mp to 45mp cameras and say their images aren't sharp as they should be. The demanding sensor needs more attention when shooting and when you're in the field instead of a studio you don't have time or the great conditions from studio. Imagine shooting the upcoming Olimpics with a 45mp or with a 61mp camera at 20fps. It will be a nightmare due to the amount of extra work to get sharp images.

Dude, you are way too pragmatic for this forum

I am with you, but market forces dictate bigger, faster - Pentax would have to bring something revolutionary to the table if they present a 28mp FF if they don't want to get covered in a pile of shit from tech sites. I suspect the majority of these camera reviewers don't do much photography besides shooting test images and therefore don't have to deal with the more practical realities. Now, the next FF model is most likely 2 or more years off in the future, so we'll have plenty of time to discuss this matter ha ha

[Rondec]

People that say too sharp lenses are not good for portraits imo don't understand portrait work. You want the sharpness, it's just about where you want it. Lips, hair, eyelashing, iris etc, you want that sharp, clothing even. If you have a soft lens then perhaps its true that less work is needed on skin but you can't sharpen those things without bringing additional noise into those areas. I'd rather have sharp and then smooth where I want that the other way around.

One thing about megapixels (though I am not sure about this), but I think you also need additional power to process large RAW files, at least I do on my potato of a machine. I notice a significant difference when processing even a 20mb jpg vs a 40mb DNG, so with more meagpixels = more stress on the hardware of the machine, so you're also spending more $$ to cope with the megapixels (true or false? it feels like that).

And I dunno about memory being cheap. I can't use the cloud storage so I carry my backups with me everywhere, currently using a 2TB Extreme Sandisk portable SSD, that thing ain't cheap! So yeah I do understand some memory is cheap, but not all is...

I don't use cloud storage either, but you can get a 8 TB hard drive on Amazon for 140 dollars which seems pretty reasonable and should last awhile, even with 40 megapixel images.

[Dan Rentea]

Of course. But if I could have 7 fps, 40-ish megapixels and a 30 shot buffer with decent clearing speed I would be very happy.

It's what I ask from the first time and until now you didn't provided a clear answer. It's still incomplete, but at least it's an answer. It tells me you need high mp with improve fps and buffer and you're ready to pay the additional costs that comes with it.

---------- Post added 01-12-20 at 02:47 PM ----------

Dude, you are way too pragmatic for this forum

A few are giving me real answers from practice. A few give me answers based on the rummors (assumptions) about the number of mp of the new camera. A few don't give me any kind of answers but they give me statistics. It's fun (and interesting) to see the different approaches to a simple question.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 01-12-2020 at 08:05 AM.

[BarneyL]

As an amateur that doesn't print larger than A2 (most is A3) from his K-1, I would be more than fine even with 16MPix. Some room for cropping is nice though, so 24MPix wouldn't hurt. Those 36Mpix are definitely an overkill for me and PIA to edit... maybe I should have stayed with crop sensor, I dunno.

[Kunzite]

Dude, you are way too pragmatic for this forum

Pragmatism is not a collection of cute stories.

[guinnessman]

I don't use cloud storage either, but you can get a 8 TB hard drive on Amazon for 140 dollars which seems pretty reasonable and should last awhile, even with 40 megapixel images.

Sidenote: Amazon offers 'unlimited' cloud backup to Amazon Photos for their Prime subscribers.

I'm assuming there is a limit, but I've done ~80 GB of RAW and JPEGs so far. That also requires fast internet and time, but if done in the background, I didn't notice when uploading from my laptop. I still back them up to an external drive, but drives can fail too. As long as I'm paying for it, why not both options.

Although I've had memory cards fail more than drives, and I do not miss the days of Smartmedia and my Olympus C-3040.

Back to the topic of resolution, I recently noticed that 24 MP hurt me, is when severely cropping, and having the wrong lens (max 105 mm), and bald eagle sitting in a tree, a match did not make.

[WorksAsIntended]

They question there is if the optical resolution would habe been enough for that crop on a higher resolution camera.
In mamy cases that question is answered negativly.

[Kunzite]

They question there is if the optical resolution would habe been enough for that crop on a higher resolution camera.
In mamy cases that question is answered negativly.

Any lens which is fine on a 24MP APS-C camera would be fine with FF cameras with higher resolution than the K-1.

Of course, if the image wouldn't be fine even with the higher pixel density APS-C...

[WorksAsIntended]

This of course is true.

[reh321]

Any lens which is fine on a 24MP APS-C camera would be fine with FF cameras with higher resolution than the K-1.

That is not quite true, because "APS-C" uses the inner most part of the cylinder, and "FF" uses the whole thing, and especially with older glass, the inner cylinders are better specified than the older ones.

[WorksAsIntended]

It is true if you crop in the middle, which I guess the poster assumed for his usecase.