[normhead]

Within aps-c



What if you buy better noise performance, better dynamic range and get 50MP as a bonus?

That I'd have to think about, just about anything could be part of the normal upgrade cycle. like getting a 24 MP K-3, when I would have been happy with 20 and the improved AF..... I don't have anything against 50 MP per se... it's just other things are more important right now. The problem with 50 MP for me, is 16 MP seems to be my spot.... I know so many guys who have 12 MP as their spot, I already feel extravagant.

[ElJamoquio]

More MP at this point just means more cropping ability... and that's only if the glass is very good.

Overall I want more MP but it's not like a critical need for me.

For Pentax, on the other hand, their 'pro' cameras should meet the specs of other 'pro' cameras. In fact since they'll be competing with older technology, they really should set their sights on exceeding the competition (but not necessarily in MP, just overall).

[philbaum]

I wonder whether we are going thru a paradigm with the use of megapixels in traditional photography. In a recent thread, someone talked about how cell phone makers, like Nokia, use 40 mp to enable post processing that produces a resulting image of 8 mp. The thread talked about Sony's tendency to make lenses without complete correction of optical problems, relying on mp and software to correct in PP. The advantages are reduced weight and size and probably expense of the lenses.

I suspect that these technologies for correction of optical problems with extra MP in PP were first developed for cell phone cameras, but are now are being applied by some companies like Sony to traditional camera optics.

Sony is already benefiting from this approach by design of lightweight small cameras like the RX100 which have sold very well. Will traditonal camera companies like Canon, Nikon, and Pentax be forced to compete in this way as well with DSLRs.

[Paul MaudDib]

More MP at this point just means more cropping ability... and that's only if the glass is very good.

Overall I want more MP but it's not like a critical need for me.

Well, you are probably saying that because you don't own a 4K display yet.

Our TV in 2004 was 720p or 1080p, and 10 years later - still 1080p. Display resolutions have stagnated for a decade. But the next one's gonna be a 4K screen for sure, and the prices have dropped to the affordable range.

That's gonna severely cut into your cropping ability. 16mp barely lets you crop at all if you're outputting a 4K image instead of a dinky 1080p. You're looking at 36mp for the standard "crop down to 25% of the original image" trick.

Yeah, you don't NEED that capability, you can often get away with switching lenses or move closer to get an image that fills the frame, but it sure is nice.

---

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 10-19-2014 at 09:44 AM.

[ElJamoquio]

Well, you are probably saying that because you don't own a 4K display yet.

Not really.

That's gonna severely cut into your cropping ability. 16mp barely lets you crop at all if you're outputting a 4K image instead of a dinky 1080p. You're looking at 36mp for the standard "crop down to 25% of the original image" hard-crop trick.

My pics are between 24 and ~120 MP these days.

[Paul MaudDib]

My pics are between 24 and ~120 MP these days.

Sure, if you're willing to shoot film you can definitely go higher. Hard to beat an 8x10 in terms of raw resolution. If your subject doesn't move, and there's no wind, you can get away with stitching images, too.

That said, film and digital are different markets that scratch different needs. Digital has left the high-ISO performance of film in the dust, it's far quicker turnaround with far less effort, and after the initial capital outlay it's far cheaper per shot.

I figure nowadays I'm running $1.00 per shot for 6x7. Maybe a bit less if I bargain-hunt expired film and try a 3-week wal-mart sendout, which might get it down to $.50. At 8x10 you're talking about roughly $20 per shot for Provia, I don't even know a lab that does C-41 dev in 8x10. But I guess at that budget level you can probably afford a Jobo and do it yourself...

Scanning a couple hundred MF negatives one-by-one is a pain in the butt with my cheapo scanners, and if I'm gonna drop $500-2k on a high-end scanner you could get a pretty nice DSLR for the same outlay.

The fact that you're shooting film doesn't obviate the need for better digital sensors.

I think 44x33 would need an f1.8 or so lens to compete. The fastest native lenses are f/2.8 iirc.

M645 system does have a 80mm f/1.9, but that's obviously not native. The P67 105/2.4 is faster and "native" if you buy the 67->645 adapter. Unfortunately they never made a 645 counterpart to that lens.

[normhead]

Well, you are probably saying that because you don't own a 4K display yet.

Our TV in 2004 was 720p or 1080p, and 10 years later - still 1080p. Display resolutions have stagnated for a decade. But the next one's gonna be a 4K screen for sure, and the prices have dropped to the affordable range.

That's gonna severely cut into your cropping ability. 16mp barely lets you crop at all if you're outputting a 4K image instead of a dinky 1080p. You're looking at 36mp for the standard "crop down to 25% of the original image" trick.

Yeah, you don't NEED that capability, you can often get away with switching lenses or move closer to get an image that fills the frame, but it sure is nice.

You haven't provided any evidence that up sampling a cropped 16 MP image where necessary won't provide acceptable results. Believe it or not I already use a 2700x1400 screen. 4k is only 50% more pixels. The 2700 monitor is mostly used for keeping multiple windows open and editing photos. There's not a thing I can think of out there that would inspire me to buy a 4k monitor. I was offered one a few years ago for around $800. I passed. And so are a huge number of other people, for many years to come. it's adoption as a standard display standard is a long way off IMHO.

[Paul MaudDib]

You haven't provided any evidence that up sampling a cropped 16 MP image where necessary won't provide acceptable results.

That's a "no true scotsman" argument. I don't think I have to prove that upsampling a low-res image produces inferior quality to a native-resolution or resized/cropped high-resolution image. But "acceptable" is in the eye of the beholder, and you will simply move the goalposts. No-True-Scotsman is an impossible argument to win and I'm not going to engage it. Most people would find a VGA-res camera "acceptable" for their facebook snaps, especially after upsampling. So when can I expect you to sell your gear and purchase a first-gen digital camera?

It's inferior to what's possible if you're not buying low-quality gear, and that's all that needs to be said.

And I say this as a person who owns a 16mp APS-C camera. That sensor's pushing 5 years old at this point, it definitely belongs in the "budget-conscious" price range. I paid <$200 for mine a year ago, if it were $1000 today I would look at stepping up to a D600 instead.

Believe it or not I already use a 2700x1400 screen. 4k is only 50% more pixels. The 2700 monitor is mostly used for keeping multiple windows open and editing photos. There's not a thing I can think of out there that would inspire me to buy a 4k monitor. I was offered one a few years ago for around $800. I passed. And so are a huge number of other people, for many years to come. it's adoption as a standard display standard is a long way off IMHO.

Seiki's 39" 4K TVs (30hz) can be had for $330 any day of the week, and they often go on sale for 25% off. Even without the sale, that's price-competitive with 1080p panels - the #5 seller on Amazon right now is a 39" 1080p for $330.

If you want a 60hz screen they run a bit more, but they're coming down fast too. Newegg had a deal a while back, $600 for a new Samsung U28D590D (28") bundled with a Samsung 840 EVO 250gb (roughly a $150 item at the time). So something like $450 on sale. And you can pick up a refurb U28D590D for $500 right now. Conversely if you picked up a brand new 28"1080p screen it would run you $275-325. You're looking at a $150ish bump in price to quadruple your resolution.

4K offers a significantly higher PPI than 1080p screens. High-PPI displays look great, it's what makes Apple's Retina displays sell like hotcakes. You yourself may not be able to see the difference, different people have different visual acuity and different quality standards. But it's no longer an extravagant expense, they're getting to be pretty cost-competitive and will continue to decline as manufacturing capacity switches from 1080p to 4K.

Personally the only 1080p screen I would buy right now is a 24" monitor that I could get refurb'd for $100-125. Buying new? Nah, spring for the Retina display. If you're not gaming 30hz probably isn't even a big deal, and that's enough resolution on a 39" to be workable as a monitor.

If I had a nickel for every time someone on this forum poo-poo'd having the option to buy technically superior gear, I would have an awful lot of nickels.

[normhead]

If I had a nickel for every time someone came on pimping new technology that never became mainstream, it think I'd probably have more hypothetical nickels than you. Not that that really adds anything to the discussion. I won't buy new technology until there's something useful I can do with it. I don't display my images on TV, so that's not it.

[Paul MaudDib]

If I had a nickel for every time someone came on pimping new technology that never became mainstream, it think I'd probably have more hypothetical nickels than you. Not that that really adds anything to the discussion.

Yeah man display resolutions have never increased in the past, it's all a gimmick, you tell 'em! Viva la IBM 5153! Long live CGA! NTSC now, NTSC forver!

Frankly it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe it - 4K is a mainstream professional standard nowadays, and has been for years. Red One came out in 2007 and 4K displays have been around for years. Nowadays the tech has percolated down to consumer price ranges - the Sony A7S shoots it, and there's displays in the $300-500 price range to play it. Starting in 2015 you will even be able to buy movies in 4K on three-layer Blueray. Ostrich all you want about it, it won't change the facts - 4K is here to stay.

I won't buy new technology until there's something useful I can do with it. I don't display my images on TV, so that's not it.

Print resolutions are even more demanding than display resolutions. Again, the ability to crop away most of an image and have something left that's worth displaying/printing is pretty useful. Maybe you don't feel like you need it, but it is nice.

I love being able to do that with 6x7 - cropping away 3/4 of a 6x7 negative leaves me with roughly a 35mm negative, which is still a usable amount of resolution. I can make a superb 8x10 print out of that, or probably larger if budget allowed.

Furthermore - 3d stereo lenses cut your resolution in half again. They're definitely cool too - I love me some stereographs. Cross your eyes until the two images cross in the middle, then defocus your eyes onto the virtual image in the center. I'll admit 3d images are gimmicky to most photographers, but I think they're fun. Most TVs will do it nowadays, too.

[normhead]

In my definition, mainstream is mainstream as in, everyone has one. You and I have different definitions.

Print resolutions are even more demanding than display resolutions. Again, the ability to crop away most of an image and have something left that's worth displaying/printing is pretty useful. Maybe you don't feel like you need it, but it is nice.

Would that be because I've sold 10 MP up sampled to 300 DPI images printed at 30x20 inches? What you think is demanding, and what I think is demanding has totally different definitions. I tend to equate your definition of "nice" with "extravagant."

I go to Futureshop and the cheapest system is 999.99 Futureshop is kind of like a mainstream store. SO yes they are there. But, what use are they?

Pair the incredible visuals with awesome audio with DTS Premium Sound 5.1 enhancement

Whoa, where's the connectivity for the 6.1 "latest greatest" DTS Pemium Sound system I have in the basement. They're still selling 1080p units that cost 3 times the price of this unit. And I still can't figure out what the heck I'd do with it.

Contemporary cinemas are wider, and now the optimum viewing distance is 1.5 screen heights back. From this vantage point you can take in all the visual information that's available and comfortably fill your field of vision. Translated to the home, that makes the most comfortable distance to view a 65-inch 4K screen approx. 1.5m.

5 feet from a 65 inch screen to take full advantage of the resolution.... I think I'll pass for now, but thanks for the topic. The link above is an interesting read for those of us who live in Whitney.

Critics say some technical issues remain, such as concerns about whether there is sufficient bandwidth in most homes to support uninterrupted viewing. There is also relatively little to watch, so far, in 4K.

Whoa, now this is a kicker....

There are currently no 4K TV channels being broadcast. But in July 2014 the DVB Steering Board approved the DVB-UHDTV Phase 1 specification, allowing for over-the-air transmission of 3840x2160 resolution pictures at 60Hz and promising much improved colour depth with 10 bits per pixel rather than 8.
The standard is expected to be ratified by the ETSI shortly, which is likely to open the floodgates for broadcasters to start launching Ultra HD TV channels.
The main problem with this new standard is that current TVs and set-top boxes will be incompatible, so you'll need to buy new gear to make use of it. You can read more on this in our news story.

OK back to my first point... it's not yet mainstream.

Only the hardiest gadget lovers should think of buying 4K now while they still cannot get the full benefit of it. Everyone else can wait.

I have a 6.1 DTS sound system, and very little it could be used for. It sits in a box in my basement, but I am so ahead of the curve.

[RonHendriks1966]

4K is here to stay.

oh please........ it's 5K if anything......

Panasonic made a commitment to deliver camera's with 8K resolution to cover the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo...... So I guess by that time....

[patarok]

on a 24MP FF sensor, a shot made in "crop mode" would still have app. 16MP... i guess. And that would make me happy also, when i think about my WR kit lenses. If that kind of resolution is good enough for the high end canons it is good enough for pentax in Crop mode. And yes 50mp would be appreciated, but the drawbacks this would probably carry are to bad to accept. Think about lower framerates (i just don't buy, that pentax will use multiple CPU's in their FF, even though this would be cool and desirable.)

[Paul MaudDib]

oh please........ it's 5K if anything......

Panasonic made a commitment to deliver camera's with 8K resolution to cover the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo...... So I guess by that time....

Sure, there are certainly technologies further out on the horizon that will be better, agreed. Right now you can buy a 4K monitor for $500 - Dell just launched a 5K monitor at $2500. In three years it will probably be down to reasonable prices, that's about how long it took 4K to get cheap enough to be a plausible purchase.

And if 8K is going to be a high-end professional system in 2020, then it either doesn't exist right now or it's an exorbitently expensive I'm not a cine expert, so I can't say, but brand-new tech easily runs into the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Whereas you can pick up an A7S and shoot 4K for $2100 right now. A bird in hand is worth two birds in 2025 when the technology finally trickles down to consumer gear.

Like always, there's a point of diminishing returns for your budget. Right now 4K is the "good enough" point, IMO. Reasonably full featured, future proof, reasonably priced. Comparing apples to apples (display size, etc) you don't really save anything by buying an equivalent, new 1080p TV. And if an extra $150 breaks your monitor budget, what you really want is a $100 refurb 1080p panel, not a brand new $300 1080p panel.

In another year or two I think 4K TVs will make up the majority of TVs sold, especially once content starts to become readily available in 4K. I think within the next year or so we start to see heavy markdowns on 1080p gear to try and clear out inventory.

[RonHendriks1966]

on a 24MP FF sensor, a shot made in "crop mode" would still have app. 16MP... i guess. And that would make me happy also, when i think about my WR kit lenses. If that kind of resolution is good enough for the high end canons it is good enough for pentax in Crop mode. And yes 50mp would be appreciated, but the drawbacks this would probably carry are to bad to accept. Think about lower framerates (i just don't buy, that pentax will use multiple CPU's in their FF, even though this would be cool and desirable.)

They can do 3 fps in 645Z, so I guess that would be possible with such a sensor. I really think that it is the design of the sensormodule, number of hiways running data that makes the framerate. Putting in a large buffer would make that possible. I guess even 5 fps could be done, but is this important for such a camera? Even a slow single PRIME III can chew on the files for a while afterwards.