Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2012, 04:33 AM   #526
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 172
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
And pixel size has no influence because pixel size does not influence the circle of confusion if you keep the print size and viewing distance constant (which you have to keep constant if you want to apply the word "comparison").
True. On the other hand, diffraction can prevent you benefiting from higher pixel density, which is what bossa was saying. Arguably, there is not much point going from 16 megapixels to 24 unless you also go from APS-C to FF.

07-16-2012, 05:58 AM   #527
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Brangdon Quote
Arguably, there is not much point going from 16 megapixels to 24 unless you also go from APS-C to FF.
Many lenses provide sufficient resolution to justify a 24MP APS-C sensor.

@bossa: How would you start substantiating your claim that "...a 24MP APS-C sensor is pushing the limits of optics and pixel/sensor density and is probably a step backwards despite the best intentions..."? (Hint: You picked the short straw. )
07-16-2012, 06:50 AM   #528
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Many lenses provide sufficient resolution to justify a 24MP APS-C sensor.

@bossa: How would you start substantiating your claim that "...a 24MP APS-C sensor is pushing the limits of optics and pixel/sensor density and is probably a step backwards despite the best intentions..."? (Hint: You picked the short straw. )
My main source of information regarding this comes from: Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

I would prefer that my assumptions were incorrect though.

PS: I'm not really interested in an argument about this stuff. I'd rather just wait and see what transpires when the new cameras show up. The Nikon D3200 is a 24MP camera and reports seem to indicate a less than stellar output.
07-16-2012, 07:09 AM   #529
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Brangdon Quote
Arguably, there is not much point going from 16 megapixels to 24 unless you also go from APS-C to FF.
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
The Nikon D3200 is a 24MP camera and reports seem to indicate a less than stellar output.
I was about to mention the D3200 when bossa did. Yes. I'm curious to Nikon's decision about it too. Why, of all levels- entry level?

07-16-2012, 07:24 AM   #530
Veteran Member
parsons's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 389
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
I was about to mention the D3200 when bossa did. Yes. I'm curious to Nikon's decision about it too. Why, of all levels- entry level?
To prey on the people who think more mp always equals better is my guess.

I don't think I would want 24 on apsc. I'd only want it on FF if I was going to crop to apsc.
07-16-2012, 07:54 AM   #531
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
I was about to mention the D3200 when bossa did. Yes. I'm curious to Nikon's decision about it too. Why, of all levels- entry level?
You can sell it to a fool, but not to someone who would like to invest real money on lenses.
07-16-2012, 07:56 AM   #532
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,340
[deleted]

Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:22 AM. Reason: [deleted]
07-16-2012, 08:01 AM   #533
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
I have some lenses that I believe would benefit from higher resolution. Theoretically there are disadvantages to higher resolution (assuming a constant thickness "border" between photosites, with high resolution eventually there's no sensors on the chip!). I'm not sure how much of a disadvantage this works out to be in practice.

I'm less concerned about filesize. We'll see. It'd be nice to be able to try out some long-focal length lenses at 2x the pixel density and see if they improve. Actually I know they have to a certain extent because I tried them on the Q.

07-16-2012, 08:10 AM   #534
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
My main source of information regarding this comes from: Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

I would prefer that my assumptions were incorrect though.

PS: I'm not really interested in an argument about this stuff. I'd rather just wait and see what transpires when the new cameras show up. The Nikon D3200 is a 24MP camera and reports seem to indicate a less than stellar output.
What I find interesting in the tool they have at the bottom is directly applicable to why you may want FF. apsc becomes limited above F11 (DOF equivalent on FF is therefore F16) FF becomes limited at F22, therefor giving more DOF before the limit kicks in. So not only is FF going to be better for the bokeh crazed, but also it will be better for the Landscape guys as well.
07-16-2012, 08:18 AM   #535
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,920
I've already made that sensor breakthru.

The best sensor that has ever been created with as much MP as we can see.
Dynamic range that leaves the Exmor in the dust.
WYSIWYG!

It even comes with a very good processing engine and storage to store those large files.




I look at the scene with my eyes and remember
07-16-2012, 08:19 AM   #536
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
There is a quite lengthy scientific article (in German only but maybe Google translate can help) here:

Von Megapixeln: Viel hilft viel | photoscala
which seems to explain, why diffraction is not an absolutely limiting factor and lots of megapixels actually do improve picture resolution.

It is the negating reply to this article which said the opposite:
Wie viele Megapixel verkraftet eine Kamera? (aktualisiert) | photoscala

So: Very smart and knowledgeable people can't reach a consensus on this topic. So I'd call it a matter of belief.
I think the biggest issues aren't the lenses (although low quality lenses will invariably suffer with higher pixel density), it is all the other things that effect image sharpness -- camera shake, subject movement, use of higher isos, and focus being off. From what I have seen at low iso, in perfect situations, there is some gain going from 16 megapixel to 24 megapixel senors (APS-C), but it certainly isn't huge and as you bump iso or introduce any of the other possible softening effects, this benefit goes away.
07-16-2012, 08:40 AM   #537
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
That's what I was thinking about: Was the Nikon 24mp sensor sold at entry level so they could sell more bodies, or that, as users would soon discover, be forced to buy better lenses to maximize the body?
07-16-2012, 10:45 AM   #538
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteQuote:
Nikon D3200 specification highlights

24MP CMOS sensor
ISO 100-6400 (plus ISO 12,800-equivalent Hi1 setting)
Expeed 3 processing
3.0", 920k dot screen
Full HD 1080p30 video (with 25p and 24p options)
Microphone socket
Twin IR remote receivers
4 frame-per-second continuous shooting
Guide mode
List price: $699

My first thought was that Sony must be really upset to see their 24mp sensor show up in a $699 entry level camera. Their Nex 7
sells for $1100 plus, i think, with the same 24mp sensor.

A friend has showed me a 12x18 print from his Nex 7 24mp, and it was impressive with the detail. But then i'm still impressed with the resolution of my K5 and i've had it for 17 months. It would be nice to be able to compare the Nex 7 output with the K5 - i suppose i could already do that with dxo or dpreview.

There might be some unintended consequences of Nikon's full-on onslaught of cameras this year. They must have 5 FF models and then this introductory aps model with 24mp. All with very competitive pricing, Maybe after this year, the professional camera reviewer and the consumer will both walk away from the camera marketing battlefield and just say: "MP don't matter any more". or don't matter as much compared to the outfitting of the camera

Pentax will likely come out with a 24mp K5 successor this year, imo. I still really like my K5 and will keep it indefinitely. If anything, i'm in the market for a compact camera. I think we're in a "golden age" of dslr cameras where they are all pretty capable - and what matters is the artist behind the tool.
07-16-2012, 11:05 AM   #539
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
List price: $699

My first thought was that Sony must be really upset to see their 24mp sensor show up in a $699 entry level camera. Their Nex 7
sells for $1100 plus, i think, with the same 24mp sensor.

A friend has showed me a 12x18 print from his Nex 7 24mp, and it was impressive with the detail. But then i'm still impressed with the resolution of my K5 and i've had it for 17 months. It would be nice to be able to compare the Nex 7 output with the K5 - i suppose i could already do that with dxo or dpreview.

There might be some unintended consequences of Nikon's full-on onslaught of cameras this year. They must have 5 FF models and then this introductory aps model with 24mp. All with very competitive pricing, Maybe after this year, the professional camera reviewer and the consumer will both walk away from the camera marketing battlefield and just say: "MP don't matter any more". or don't matter as much compared to the outfitting of the camera

Pentax will likely come out with a 24mp K5 successor this year, imo. I still really like my K5 and will keep it indefinitely. If anything, i'm in the market for a compact camera. I think we're in a "golden age" of dslr cameras where they are all pretty capable - and what matters is the artist behind the tool.
Nikon's been pretty aggressive for sure, but they only have 3 FF (D800, D800E D4) D700 is now gone (though some retailers may still have it), Same with D3x AFAIK

24mp is almost certain in the K5 replacement, what will end up in the entry level model rumoured (the K300) is still TBD but i would bet the 16mp sensor in the K30/K-01
FF who knows???
07-16-2012, 04:02 PM   #540
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,920
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the biggest issues aren't the lenses (although low quality lenses will invariably suffer with higher pixel density), it is all the other things that effect image sharpness -- camera shake, subject movement, use of higher isos, and focus being off. From what I have seen at low iso, in perfect situations, there is some gain going from 16 megapixel to 24 megapixel senors (APS-C), but it certainly isn't huge and as you bump iso or introduce any of the other possible softening effects, this benefit goes away.

Very much agree.
Coming from using the Q with a K-Q adapter, which basically packs MP into a small area of the lens, the main thing that struck me was not whether my K-mounts were good enough, but focus error/ camera shake and subject movement.
The good lenses have so far been very sharp (that means center sharp, since the Q uses only that).
Apparently so too with test shots in the house of well lit and fixed items.
But when I start using these lenses in actual applications hand held, hot/less comfortable outdoors, moving subjects, the MP density shows off all errors mentioned above.

But lets see what the 24MP sensor can give from a Pentax.


QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote


Pentax will likely come out with a 24mp K5 successor this year, imo. I still really like my K5 and will keep it indefinitely. If anything, i'm in the market for a compact camera. I think we're in a "golden age" of dslr cameras where they are all pretty capable - and what matters is the artist behind the tool.

Very true.
Circa 2011-12, most cameras have sensors that are actually good enough for most uses, especially so when coupled with a nice fast lens.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cameras, dslr, frame, full-frame, pentax, pentax full frame, rumor, rumors, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top