[ftpaddict]

Hee hee hee hee. Canon need to pay more for advertising.

[er1kksen]

It seems to me that people over at DPR, the reviewers included, are making a little too much of the results of their tests, saying things about it "clearly showing the brick wall of preformance limited by pixel density (paraphrased)."

That's a little grandiose for a conclusion based on the test results of a single camera, especially given that it's the first APS-C camera we've seen go over 15mp, so there's nothing to compare with. And given how well the K20D does when operating so close to that "performance limit" they're talking about.

[Jonson PL]

Still stuck on pixel density.. Obviously mavericks can't read (or since their maverics refuse to read and believe)...... Give it up. Pixel density increase is a good thing.
DP Review's "belief" in pixel density problems is a myth...

Think you should read this thread and learn what pixel density really means.. Be sure to follow all the links.
Pixel density revisited: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review
As for the evidence, Emil (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/) has pointed you to a post of his, there's a long series of posts which you didn't follow, but did discuss and present the evidence in some detail, there's John Sheehy's demonstration under the title 'the joy of pixel density' , and finally there have been extensive discussions of the physics behind it, which back up the position that in theory there is no causal link between pixel density and final image noise content at any given image size (with the caveat that there are noise effects such as random telegraph noise, which come into play at very small geometries). These discussions included a number of people who are research physicists (not me, I hasten to add), and included Eric Fossum.
Your urban legends are showing again.
Re: No really, it isn't: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review
When one does this exercise, it becomes apparent that the main factor in image noise is sensor size. The result is largely independent of MP count for a fixed sensor size. Pixel density, which is sensor area divided by MP count, is poorly correlated to noise because both MP count and sensor size will vary from camera to camera, but only one of those factors is tied to noise level.
Read carefully and you may yet learn weedhopper......
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/40091-could-someon...vantage-2.html

Thanks for your links in that thread

[benjikan]

It seems to me that people over at DPR, the reviewers included, are making a little too much of the results of their tests, saying things about it "clearly showing the brick wall of preformance limited by pixel density (paraphrased)."

That's a little grandiose for a conclusion based on the test results of a single camera, especially given that it's the first APS-C camera we've seen go over 15mp, so there's nothing to compare with. And given how well the K20D does when operating so close to that "performance limit" they're talking about.

For all intent and purpose the K20D is effectively a 15 MP camera, or very close to it. Total pixels 15.10 MP.

Ben

[Aristophanes]

As you stated, it's a physics problem. And the laws of physics don't change for pixel density.

Unless the photos get smaller due to global warming and the diffraction to all light from the Sun being filtered through more methane. ;-)

[er1kksen]

Ah, but you see the effects would be offset by the thermal expansion of the photosites due to raised temperatures.