[jsherman999]

I don't think Pentax has the support technology/hardware to make 54MP work. It would have have to be a dual processor body with a huge buffer and much larger batteries. We should be seeing the next generation of sensors from Sony. The new A99II will have a new sensor. An improved 36MP sensor would be nice, but Pentax would have to lower the frame rate. A new 24MP sensor with hardware based AA filter would allow Pentax to keep the performance specs of the K-3 and share hardware. The 24MP allows Pentax to keep costs down.

The question is probably more if someone like Fujitsu has the hardware that would make 54MP work while still being affordable. Pentax doesn't make any of the ASICS. I doubt it would be a major roadblock by the end of 2015 though, when this 54MP would be ready for first-adapters.

But you're probably right, that's jumping the gun for Pentax at this point, and a new 36MP cmos would be very sweet.

[markac]

Would be nice, or this (54MP)

I don't think even Sony will use that sensor at first. It tends to let Nikon use it's new sensors and when it has an improved version, it introduces it into it's own cameras. So an improved 36MP Sony sensor would be good for the Pentax FF. Now that several (including Pentax) APS-C DSLRs are 24MP, 24MP seems a little bottom range for a FF DSLR. Especially one that's still yet to make it's debut.

[ChristianRock]

I don't think even Sony will use that sensor at first. It tends to let Nikon use it's new sensors and when it has an improved version, it introduces it into it's own cameras. So an improved 36MP Sony sensor would be good for the Pentax FF. Now that several (including Pentax) APS-C DSLRs are 24MP, 24MP seems a little bottom range for a FF DSLR. Especially one that's still yet to make it's debut.

For the people that are more interested in specs, that is part of their consideration. For practical purposes, 24MP is pretty much enough to print your picture on a wall. How many megapickles does one really need, and why?

[jsherman999]

For the people that are more interested in specs, that is part of their consideration. For practical purposes, 24MP is pretty much enough to print your picture on a wall. How many megapickles does one really need, and why?

More is better, everything else (DR, SNR) being the same. More Data = better potential for downsampling and cleaner cropping, more leeway to apply NR while retaining detail, etc. If you want to use your aps-c lenses in 'crop mode', 24MP gives you 10.5MP in the frame, 36MP gives you 15.5.

That's the shooter's perspective. From the market perspective, why go 24MP at this point when 36MP is there and proven, and 54MP is right around the corner? You don't want your vendor's flagship to start out behind at the gate.

Don't fear the MP. MP can be your friend.

[ChristianRock]

I don't fear the megapickles and I agree that for some very intense cropping, lots of it can be good.

But I don't think it's a *must*. Of course, knowing the market and knowing a lot of people think more MP = better IQ, of course Pentax will go for more MP. It's just the way the game is played...

[jsherman999]

... knowing a lot of people think more MP = better IQ,

I think that way, and it comes from experience, not from a susceptibility to marketing.

(Caveat being, as I said, everything else equal (SNR, DR))

.

[ChristianRock]

Right, I understand... but I meant like my co-worker who just bought a Sony Superzoom that was pretty expensive but has a 1/2.3" sensor... but hey, it's 20MP so it's gotta be good, right? And he just went to Europe and is now wondering why his pictures don't look so great...

And after around 16MP - or maybe even less - I think there's definitely a law of diminishing returns in increasing the MP count, unless you print in meters... 12MP seems to be enough to print poster size... but I digress

[Winder]

Right, I understand... but I meant like my co-worker who just bought a Sony Superzoom that was pretty expensive but has a 1/2.3" sensor... but hey, it's 20MP so it's gotta be good, right? And he just went to Europe and is now wondering why his pictures don't look so great...

And after around 16MP - or maybe even less - I think there's definitely a law of diminishing returns in increasing the MP count, unless you print in meters... 12MP seems to be enough to print poster size... but I digress

There are a lot of variables in the equation. A FF sensor with 12MP requires a pretty heavy AA filter where 36MP can usually get away without an AA filter. RAW processors do a much better job of identifying and removing noise when they have a larger sample to work with. I don't know about all RAW converters, but DxO works better with higher pixel density. If you are working in a studio at base ISO you have very different needs than someone who works events or concerts. The 12MP sensor would have to have a 2 stop advantage over the 36MP sensor before I would be interested.

When printing on glossy media I can see the difference in detail between my K-5 and my K-3 at A3+ size prints. If I'm printing on rag or canvas, I can't see the difference. Lot's of people order prints on canvas just for this reason. Textured media can hide a lot of noise and flaws. When I was using my 5D and playing with the Sony A900, I could see the difference between the 12MP Canon 5D and the Sony A900 when printed on good media.

Smaller sensors like your friends Sony 1/2.3" tend to produce rather flat images, and when you add the smaller sensor with a super-soft-super-slow-super-zoom lens you get even worse results. Throw in Sony's industry leading trailing JPEG engine you get unimpressive results from an expensive camera. It has nothing to do with MPs.

I don't want a lot of megapickles just for the sake of cropping. I really don't do much cropping. As technology moves forward we are getting more MPs with more noise, so we are getting better IQ. I want better IQ.

The 54MP Sony sensor is simply the same wafer as the 24MP APS-C sensor. The 36MP sensor shares the wafer with the 16MP APS-C. The 54MP FF sensor is obviously a possibility, and you wouldn't need an AA filter most of the time. It would require some serious processing power get get it up to 5 frames per second in 14-bit RAW and a huge buffer.

What does a 54MP K-1 do to the market? Pentax could have a flagship camera that would be industry leading and they would be ahead of the market instead of trailing. From a marketing standpoint I think Pentax should do it.

[WaveDancer]

There are a lot of variables in the equation. A FF sensor with 12MP requires a pretty heavy AA filter where 36MP can usually get away without an AA filter. RAW processors do a much better job of identifying and removing noise when they have a larger sample to work with. I don't know about all RAW converters, but DxO works better with higher pixel density. If you are working in a studio at base ISO you have very different needs than someone who works events or concerts. The 12MP sensor would have to have a 2 stop advantage over the 36MP sensor before I would be interested.

When printing on glossy media I can see the difference in detail between my K-5 and my K-3 at A3+ size prints. If I'm printing on rag or canvas, I can't see the difference. Lot's of people order prints on canvas just for this reason. Textured media can hide a lot of noise and flaws. When I was using my 5D and playing with the Sony A900, I could see the difference between the 12MP Canon 5D and the Sony A900 when printed on good media.

Smaller sensors like your friends Sony 1/2.3" tend to produce rather flat images, and when you add the smaller sensor with a super-soft-super-slow-super-zoom lens you get even worse results. Throw in Sony's industry leading trailing JPEG engine you get unimpressive results from an expensive camera. It has nothing to do with MPs.

I don't want a lot of megapickles just for the sake of cropping. I really don't do much cropping. As technology moves forward we are getting more MPs with more noise, so we are getting better IQ. I want better IQ.

The 54MP Sony sensor is simply the same wafer as the 24MP APS-C sensor. The 36MP sensor shares the wafer with the 16MP APS-C. The 54MP FF sensor is obviously a possibility, and you wouldn't need an AA filter most of the time. It would require some serious processing power get get it up to 5 frames per second in 14-bit RAW and a huge buffer.

What does a 54MP K-1 do to the market? Pentax could have a flagship camera that would be industry leading and they would be ahead of the market instead of trailing. From a marketing standpoint I think Pentax should do it.

Pentax has a + 50MP Camera, the 645 Z - no need to squeeze + 36 mp on a small APS-C sensor. Qualitywise, with large prints, the Fuji X-100S/16 MP comes near FF quality with + 24 MP's. The printmedia and the Know how for printing is as important. 14-bit RAW is a must.

[hjoseph7]

Coming from the Canon line maybe I can offer a little insight on this. My first digital camera was a Canon 30D(8.2 MG pixels). Around that time, the Canon 5D also came out which was the world's first portable FF camera for under $5000(13.2 MG pixels). It took me 2+ years to save up for the 5D. With a combination of Tax refunds, credit cards and savings, I finally purchased it for around $2300.


Meanwhile for the past 2 years, I kept using the 30D for all my photographic needs. The 30D cost me about $1200. The year was 2008. When I first took the 5D out of the box, to me it looked like a slightly larger version of my 30D. When I looked through the manual it did not have any exceptional features, other than increased resolution of 12.8 MG pixels in comparison to the 8.2 MG pixel on my Canon 30D and of course it was Full Frame.


The 5D was sort of big disappointment to me. It did not have the features I really wanted such as weather-sealing although the pictures were slightly better than the pictures from my 30D. The resolution was better, and shallow DOF was easier to obtain, but by then I had purchased several cropped series lenses which did not fit on the 5D and which I did not know what to do with ? The camera cost so much that I was afraid to take it out on the streets and was much more comfortable with the cheaper 30D !


A couple of years later there was a huge campaign by Canon users to increase the resolution of the 30D to keep up with the Nikon 200D. Canon finally relented by coming out with the 40D a 10 MG pixel camera with Live View and Sensor cleaning. I skipped on the 40D because I felt that an increase in 2MG pixels was not worth it(plus I was broke). There was another huge campaign by Canon users to upgrade the 5D which by then had become obsolete since it did not have things like Live View and auto Sensor cleaning.


A couple of years later, Canon finally came out with the upgraded 5D II and the 7D. The 7D was supposedly weather sealed which is a feature I always wanted and was feature rich, so I sprung for it. I certainly was not willing to shell out 3 grand for another camera Full Frame, Video, sensor cleaning or not so I skipped on the 5D II.


The manual for the 7D was 2X as big as the manual for the 5D and 3X as big as the manual for the 30D. The camera had so many customizable features that did not make sense, that I barely got through half of it before I had to put it down.



I since sold the Canon 5D and the 7D, but kept my 30D believe it or not. I also purchased a Pentax k-5 IIs and have no ambitions to move up to the K3 no matter what the hype(unless I win the Lotto). I'll probably stick with the K-5 and concentrate more on purchasing some Limited lenses but who knows...

[Winder]

Coming from the Canon line maybe I can offer a little insight on this. My first digital camera was a Canon 30D. Around that time, the Canon 5D also came out which was the world's first portable FF camera for under $5000. It took me 2+ years to save up for the 5D. With a combination of Tax refunds, credit cards and savings, I finally purchased it for around $2300.


Meanwhile for the past 2 years, I kept using the 30D for all my photographic needs. The 30D cost me about $1200. The year was 2008. When I first took the 5D out of the box, to me it looked like a slightly larger version of my 30D. When I looked through the manual it did not have any exceptional features, other than increased resolution of 12.8 MG pixels in comparison to the 8.2 MG pixel on my Canon 30D and of course it was Full Frame.


The 5D was sort of big disappointment to me. It did not have the features I really wanted such as weather-sealing although the pictures were slightly better than the pictures from my 30D. The resolution was better, and shallow DOF was easier to obtain, but by then I had purchased several cropped series lenses which did not fit on the 5D and which I did not know what to do with ? The camera cost so much that I was afraid to take it out on the streets and was much more comfortable with the cheaper 30D !


A couple of years later there was a huge campaign by Canon users to increase the resolution of the 30D to keep up with the Nikon 200D. Canon finally relented by coming out with the 40D a 10 MG pixel camera with Live View and Sensor cleaning. I skipped on the 40D because I felt that an increase in 2MG pixels was not worth it(plus I was broke). There was another huge campaign by Canon users to upgrade the 5D which by then had become obsolete since it did not have things like Live View and auto Sensor cleaning.


A couple of years later, Canon finally came out with the upgraded 5D II and the 7D. The 7D was supposedly weather sealed which is a feature I always wanted and was feature rich, so I sprung for it. I certainly was not willing to shell out 3 grand for another camera Full Frame, Video, sensor cleaning or not so I skipped on the 5D II.


The manual for the 7D was 2X as big as the manual for the 5D and 3X as big as the manual for the 30D. The camera had so many customizable features that did not make sense, that I barely got through half of it before I had to put it down.



I since sold the Canon 5D and the 7D, but kept my 30D believe it or not. I also purchased a Pentax k-5 IIs and have no ambitions to move up to the K3 no matter what the hype(unless I win the Lotto). I'll probably stick with the K-5 and concentrate more on purchasing some Limited lenses but who knows...

What does any of this have to do with the question of 24MP vs 36MP on a FF sensor?

[hjoseph7]

What does any of this have to do with the question of 24MP vs 36MP on a FF sensor?

Be careful what you ask for or you might just get it.

[Poit]

What does a 54MP K-1 do to the market? Pentax could have a flagship camera that would be industry leading and they would be ahead of the market instead of trailing. From a marketing standpoint I think Pentax should do it.

I know we're going around in circles here, and the advocates of more megapixels will never agree with me, but I can't resist!!!

I think there is a lot more to 'market leading' than the number of megapixels, and 36 or 54MP does not necessarily equate to leading the market. Similarly, 24MP (which has its own advantages) does not necessarily mean 'trailing' the market.

There are a host of other aspects to consider, such as the target audience, for whom other features (such as frame-rate, file size, and manageability) are more important than a billion megapixels. Wedding photographers and road/reportage-based photographers spring immediately to mind, and that market is a very obvious gap in Pentax's current line-up (which makes it an obvious market to go after).

I've said it before, both Canon and Nikon 'flagships' (the 1D and D4 respectively) have less than 24MP. Regardless of the reasons people wish to march out (support for their proprietary sensors, or whatever), both are considered the peak of professional FF cameras available today. They are market leading, not trailing.

Why should a 24MP Pentax with a host of features that are extremely attractive to wedding shooters, sports shooters, and reporters be any different?

---------- Post added 07-27-14 at 02:07 PM ----------

What does any of this have to do with the question of 24MP vs 36MP on a FF sensor?

At least it's a good news story for Pentax

[jogiba]

I know we're going around in circles here, and the advocates of more megapixels will never agree with me, but I can't resist!!!

I think there is a lot more to 'market leading' than the number of megapixels, and 36 or 54MP does not necessarily equate to leading the market. Similarly, 24MP (which has its own advantages) does not necessarily mean 'trailing' the market.

There are a host of other aspects to consider, such as the target audience, for whom other features (such as frame-rate, file size, and manageability) are more important than a billion megapixels. Wedding photographers and road/reportage-based photographers spring immediately to mind, and that market is a very obvious gap in Pentax's current line-up (which makes it an obvious market to go after).

I've said it before, both Canon and Nikon 'flagships' (the 1D and D4 respectively) have less than 24MP. Regardless of the reasons people wish to march out (support for their proprietary sensors, or whatever), both are considered the peak of professional FF cameras available today. They are market leading, not trailing.

Why should a 24MP Pentax with a host of features that are extremely attractive to wedding shooters, sports shooters, and reporters be any different?

---------- Post added 07-27-14 at 02:07 PM ----------



At least it's a good news story for Pentax

Ricoh should just come out with 12mp, 24mp and 36mp full frame cameras to satisfy all types of shooters.

[hjoseph7]

What does any of this have to do with the question of 24MP vs 36MP on a FF sensor?

Oops now that I think of it I was on the wrong Thread, excuse my rambling....


In any case, more megapixels is not always better, it is great to have, but does not necessarily mean it's going to improve your photography. We all know that more pixels usually mean more resolution but the negatives usually mean lesser battery life, slower downloads, bigger and more powerful computers, bigger faster and more expensive flash cards and decreased performance in low light. if you can handle all that fine, but if you are only going to be posting on the web or printing 8x10", you are not going to see allot of difference. The difference comes in when you zoom in and you no longer see the 'Jaggies' at a certain magnification. Also when you need to print big or do a lot of cropping. Better to work on your composition than to start cropping parts out of an image it wont look right anyway.


My point is that with an 8 MG pixel camera I get perfectly fine images for posting and printing. Although I would not print past 11X14. With my K-5 with 16MG pixels I can print 24X30 easy. I sometimes turn down the resolution on my K-5 to 10MG so that I can fit more images on the card and because I want to see a smoother, softer not blazing sharp images.






When I was developing film in my darkroom I use to develop 35mm, 120mm, and 4X5 sheet film. Do you know that if I put a 4X5 sheet film under the enlarger and decided to print an 8X10 it would look no different than if I used a 35mm negative. Now if I was to print the 4X5 negative on 24X30 sheet of paper then I would begin seeing the differences in resolution.




Take a look at the file sizes for my scanner :


Scan resolution: 300dpi File size = 300KB
Scan resolution: 600dpi File size = 1.4 MB
Scan resolution: 1800dpi File size = 12.9MB
Scan resolution: 3600dpi File size = 52MB
Scan resolution: 5000dpi File size = 95.2MB
Scan resolution: 7200dpi File size = 208MB