[Shanti]

Ok maybe dumb question here but...
doing alot of wildlife/nature stuff these days I really like the K5II for the crop factor,but I miss detail in landscape shots..grass,foilage etc.. will FF & a good WA lens give me so much more detail??and would I need 36MP to do it
have thought about the Sony A7r & WA Lens just for landscape,as small size to carry with the K5II.
or is the only way to get a Phase one or MF if I want that kind of detail? & a better job
Cheers S

[Adam]

Ok maybe dumb question here but...
doing alot of wildlife/nature stuff these days I really like the K5II for the crop factor,but I miss detail in landscape shots..grass,foilage etc.. will FF & a good WA lens give me so much more detail??and would I need 36MP to do it
have thought about the Sony A7r & WA Lens just for landscape,as small size to carry with the K5II.
or is the only way to get a Phase one or MF if I want that kind of detail? & a better job
Cheers S

You get more detail from the K-3. Not as much as from the D800 or A7R, but still a lot more than from the K-5.

[Shanti]

You get more detail from the K-3. Not as much as from the D800 or A7R, but still a lot more than from the K-5.

I thought 16-18MP for APS C was the max for best quality & pixel density?

[JohnBee]

Ok maybe dumb question here but...
doing alot of wildlife/nature stuff these days I really like the K5II for the crop factor,but I miss detail in landscape shots..grass,foilage etc.. will FF & a good WA lens give me so much more detail??and would I need 36MP to do it
have thought about the Sony A7r & WA Lens just for landscape,as small size to carry with the K5II.
or is the only way to get a Phase one or MF if I want that kind of detail? & a better job
Cheers S

The answer is: YES
You need a FF and as many MP has you can get your hands on.
Don't ask why though, because I can't explain it myself. I just know this to be the case.

PS. a MF would definitely be better than any FF out there, but costs much more.

[pinholecam]

You'd need above 24mp FF imo, to get a more significant improvement to IQ, but the primary question you need to ask yourself is 'How much IQ is considered enough for what you need/do?"

IMO, 36mp FF is great, but not the cost, size weight.
The A7r is a viable option, but don't count on native lenses, you'd probably need to adapt a UWA to be clear of edge/corner issues.
And then, it just becomes a rather pricey manual camera.

Foveon in the form of the X3 sensors to me makes me rethink all this big sensor for better IQ business.
A DP1m is small, light and packed with IQ, sharp from edge to edge because of better lens to sensor matching and costs less than the 36mp FF.

I already print A3/A3+ w/o issues with my 16mp K30.
Playing around with the 24mp files on K3 and D7100, I think they benefit from downsizing to get even less noisy and sharper looking files than a 16mp sensor.
IMO, we are nearing the point where all sensors, all camera brands are good enough for most uses.
The rest is just what we feel comfortable and is willing to pay for.

[Miguel]

Ok maybe dumb question here but...
doing alot of wildlife/nature stuff these days I really like the K5II for the crop factor,but I miss detail in landscape shots..grass,foilage etc.. will FF & a good WA lens give me so much more detail??and would I need 36MP to do it
have thought about the Sony A7r & WA Lens just for landscape,as small size to carry with the K5II.
or is the only way to get a Phase one or MF if I want that kind of detail? & a better job
Cheers S

I'm curious, in what context do you need to see "more detail." Prints (and what size)?

M

[Adam]

I thought 16-18MP for APS C was the max for best quality & pixel density?

That's what many people though too until the newer 24 megapixel APS-C sensors came out. Take a look at our K-3 review tomorrow and see for yourself

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Digitalis]

In summary...



You would be better off getting a camera with no AA filter, like the K5IIs and a high quality prime lens like the FA31,FA43,FA77* - use them with a tripod with good technique and at apertures below the diffraction limit and you will have plenty of detail to work with.

* the DA*55mm f/1.4 and the DA limiteds from 35mm ~ 70mm range, as well as the D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR and DA*300mm f/4 are all excellent choices.

[Joojoo2010]

No, u not need FF. But if u r planning to make living by taking photos then its another story...

[Chris Mak]

Ok maybe dumb question here but...
doing alot of wildlife/nature stuff these days I really like the K5II for the crop factor,but I miss detail in landscape shots..grass,foilage etc.. will FF & a good WA lens give me so much more detail??and would I need 36MP to do it
have thought about the Sony A7r & WA Lens just for landscape,as small size to carry with the K5II.
or is the only way to get a Phase one or MF if I want that kind of detail? & a better job
Cheers S

Needing an FF also means needing good FF lenses. Assuming you would have those, I am sure that FF is going to produce a higher level of image quality. Not so much higher detail in itself, the K3 produces higher detail, but I don't regard that fact alone as higher IQ. I assume you don't just want higher detail, but also better tonality, color, handling of light. I have four Zeiss ZK lenses that are absolutely fine on Apsc, but when I see the images posted on the FM forum, using the same lenses on the Canon 5mkIII, or the Nikon FF cameras, there's more of a difference than just the wider angle of view. Detail is not the whole story. Thing is though, that us Pentax users generally don't have the in-depth experience with FF cameras to be able to really know the differences. That is why it is high time Pentax came out with their first ever digital FF camera.... Than we can finally see for ourselves.
Chris

[Rondec]

I guess the question is how much you crop, how big you print, and how much you want to spend. A D800 will allow you to print bigger than a K3, but for a cost. I shoot a lot of landscape photography and honestly, I get plenty of detail, even at 16 megapixels to print up to 36 inches on the long side. I am sure that a D800 would do better, but for a cost. With regard to wildlife, a 24 megapixel APS-C probably has an advantage over full frame, because you are struggling to get extra length anyway.

There are plenty of reasons to want full frame, but usually if you have to ask, you don't "need" it.

[Sandy Hancock]

Digitalis and Rondec know what they are talking about.

[Mr Spocko]

That's what many people though too until the newer 24 megapixel APS-C sensors came out. Take a look at our K-3 review tomorrow and see for yourself

100% crop shots are not relevant to real world shooting, that's my experience. 24mp is obviously more than 16mp but it's not a massive jump up either.
Doing a 100% and screen grab has nothing to do with making a print, not even remotely even a big print will show a marginal and not particularly big difference in fact a blind test would be hard to tell them apart, even at big A2 print sizes.

Of course camera makers "want people" to believe that they need 24mp because they can sell more cameras.
People had a point in 2/3 mp days when they said resolution was lacking (you'll still get a decent A4 print off 3mp no problems) for larger it wasn't enough
Not to dismiss the advances in DR and low light (I'm not seeing any 24mp clear advantage here), but bar bragging rights and marketing resolution isn't a problem for most.

As for full frame would be nice to have a choice of that, it's not a requirement for everyone as APS-C is quite good enough, and has decent enough low light/DOF control.


6mp came along and it was a decent step up (enough for decent enlargements without worry) but then 10mp came along..an ok move forward but the more resolution you have to start with, the less obvious the effects of more mp are. 3-6mp was a much larger jump than 6-10mp

Then we had 10 to 12mp and so on and so forth.
Point being when you have 16mp already, another 8mp isn't really that dramatic at all.
And the problem is 24mp means camera makers have to think of even more higher resolution sensors to tempt people with 24mp cameras to upgrade. Even a 30mp APS-C DSLR will be effectively invisible v a 24mp.

Folks were mostly right when the said 10-12mp is enough for most people, any other line is basically playing into the paws of pixel peeping and camera sales.

[normhead]

Ok maybe dumb question here but...
doing alot of wildlife/nature stuff these days I really like the K5II for the crop factor,but I miss detail in landscape shots..grass,foilage etc.. will FF & a good WA lens give me so much more detail??and would I need 36MP to do it
have thought about the Sony A7r & WA Lens just for landscape,as small size to carry with the K5II.
or is the only way to get a Phase one or MF if I want that kind of detail? & a better job
Cheers S

Most people don't make full use of 16 MP. The factors around leaf detail etc. are many and most don't have anything to do with sensor size. A steady tripod out of the wind is a good start. If you have any camera movement at all, you may as well be shooting with a 6 MP camera. The subject landscape has to be still, if your grasses are blowing in the wind, there goes your detail. If you aren't shooting on a 2 second delay, or with a remote, there goes your detail. Your shooting at the hyper-focal point and not depending on AF.

So say you're doing all those things…

You're shooting on a really heavy tripod.
You always use the 2 second delay.
You only shoot on windless days in perfect light conditions.
You are shooting from your hyper-focal point on every image.

If you do all those things, and can't get what you want out of a 16 MP camera, then you have an argument for moving up a sensor size. Having just gone from a 16-24 (K-5 to K-3) what I'm realizing is even to get the most out of the K-3, I'm going to have to pay attention to these things.

Using a light tripod. ( I hate the idea of carrying a big expensive rigid tripod)
Taking a lot of shots hand held/
Using AF
Shooting in windy conditions that move the subject and my tripod.

I would argue, more MP will not make up for poor technique

I'm not getting out of even my K-5 what I could be….I have to make the most of what I have now, before I even evaluate whether FF could be a benefit. And given that I lose magnification in cropped wildlife images by going FF, if I'm only going to carry one camera, it's going to be a K-3. For me, it's the best compromise.

Lighter, smaller foot print. Easier to carry. Lighter lenses for same effective focal length. Just as good IQ for the images I shoot. On the whole cheaper.

Also, you might want to consider the limits of resolution period. here I have an image taken on a very windy day, my camera was shaking, the leaves were blowing, there is no fine detail in this image.

But I love the image.

[RonHendriks1966]

You will be fine with the K-3 untill the day the Pentax FF K-1 arrivés.