[Cynog Ap Brychan]

16MP full frame i honestly wouldn't mind even a little. anything over 24MP is a waste at 35mm, lenses just don't resolve any further. those wanting higher should consider medium format.

Where did you get that idea from? Many of my lenses resolve a lot higher than 16 Mpx. I have 16, 24 and 36 Mpx cameras, and all have their uses, but my go to camera is the 36 Mpx one. I will not buy a Pentax full-frame unless it has 36 Mpx. There would be no point.

---------- Post added 02-18-15 at 08:17 AM ----------

That's because they're obviously planning to make it to the technical and price level of a Nikon D8*0

I so hope you're right, even about the price. I don't want Pentax to be a cheap alternative to Nikon and Canon, I want them to be a real alternative, with killer features and robustness.

[wolfhask]

if...? if not silver?

[Blue]

if...? if not silver?

Don't worry, silver will come out about 4 months in for an extra $1K.

[jsherman999]

anything over 24MP is a waste at 35mm, lenses just don't resolve any further.

False. Almost any lens you can find will resolve more on 50mp than 24mp (it would have to be truly bad not to.) Lots to read on this, sometimes a back-forth discussion answers all your questions.

[lawsonstone]

I will not buy the Pentax Full Frame if I have to ransom more than 1 of my children to pay for it…

---------- Post added 02-18-2015 at 12:52 PM ----------

I am totally drinking this kool-aid. All of it. Licking the pitcher. Looking around plaintively asking "Is that all there is?"

[civiletti]

I will not buy the FF, if ... the upcoming 50mp Sony mirrorless yields better image quality.

[Joel B]

I will not buy the Pentax Full Frame if I have to ransom more than 1 of my children to pay for it…

Shoot if I could trade my children for one, I would be all over that!

[spinach]

Where did you get that idea from? Many of my lenses resolve a lot higher than 16 Mpx. I have 16, 24 and 36 Mpx cameras, and all have their uses, but my go to camera is the 36 Mpx one. I will not buy a Pentax full-frame unless it has 36 Mpx. There would be no point.

ha, i didn't say they wouldn't resolve higher than 16. 24 is pretty much it. higher and you lose sharpness. here's what a physicist told me. i will believe someone who studies optics over camera salespeople hawking megapixels.

also, larger pixels on a sensor means less noise, all else being equal.

also also, nikon's flagship ff camera (D4s) is 16MP, canon's (1D C) 18MP -- there's more to a camera than megapixels.

[normhead]

ha, i didn't say they wouldn't resolve higher than 16. 24 is pretty much it. higher and you lose sharpness. here's what a physicist told me. i will believe someone who studies optics over camera salespeople hawking megapixels.

also, larger pixels on a sensor means less noise, all else being equal.

Some good points but don't get too wrapped up in what he writes. He debunks myths that aren't myths, uses imaginary values for his signal to noise ratios etc, and ignores features like that amount of the pixel that is non-receptive. The actual receptor, especially in older sensors can be a small fraction of the size of the pixel as determined by dividing the sensor size into pixels. So in fact a newer sensor may be collecting more photons than an older bigger sensor, and therefore be less subject to noise.

I don't want to write a book here, but, I do agree practically, I didn't get as much for my K-3, going from 16 to 24 MP as I expected. But then I'd compared images with a friends D5200 and found them to be practically identical to my K-5 images, so I wasn't expecting much.

But long story short, that article isn't the whole story.... far from it, and while it's got some good stuff, it leaves out some equally important stuff.

[spinach]

There is no reason this cannot be a software fix.

software in a body can't couple with a physical tab in a lens that has to be physically moved -- the room needed is for the actual physical lever and the mechanism to operate it. after that, yeah, all the software.

---------- Post added 02-19-15 at 07:26 AM ----------

So in fact a newer sensor may be collecting more photons than an older bigger sensor, and therefore be less subject to noise.

the same would be true regardless of resolution -- so a lower resolution sensor would still collect more photons than a higher resolution one of the same size using current design (implied in "all else being equal").

[normhead]

software in a body can't couple with a physical tab in a lens that has to be physically moved -- the room needed is for the actual physical lever and the mechanism to operate it. after that, yeah, all the software.

---------- Post added 02-19-15 at 07:26 AM ----------


the same would be true regardless of resolution -- so a lower resolution sensor would still collect more photons than a higher resolution one of the same size using current design (implied in "all else being equal").

The last fall back of the outflanked, go to the "all things being equal" arguments... in other words, rely on fantasy. Where is this magical world where all things are equal?
The simple fact is, many innovations come to small sensors first... many never make it to larger sensors. There's been a backlit Optio WR camera for 2 or three years now, that tech being a way of improving low light performance. As far as I know there are no backlit APS-c of FF sensors. The simple facts are that, all things are never equal. They do not make small sensors and large sensors from the same wafers. It's not like film, where you can use the same emulsion in different cameras. The biggest cause of mis-understanding in these kinds of debates, is the film guys bringing film type assumptions to digital arguments. The above quoted article, does so on several occasions. And that's why it's pretty much irrelevant in the real world.

Every sensor and in some cases camera, because the K-5 and D7000 share the same sensor, must be evaluated separately. The implementation of the analogue conversion to digital can have a large effect as can the physical sensor performance. A camera system is far more than a sensor. You can only learn about the actual attributes of a given sensor or camera, through actual measurement. No theory I've heard in takes into account enough parameters to be able to reliably predict camera performance, from any theoretical postulation.

The engineers that work for camera companies are never going to tell you enough of what you need to know to be able to even begin to try and do that.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

As far as I know there are no backlit APS-c of FF sensors

The recent Samsung NX1 has an APS-C backlit sensor.

[normhead]

The recent Samsung NX1 has an APS-C backlit sensor.

Cool..... how does it perform?

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Cool..... how does it perform?

Haven't read a full review yet. It has a 28 Mpx backlit APS-C sensor, and can rattle off 15 frames a second (with tracking AF, I think). It's low light performance seems to be good, too.

[sherrvonne]

...Because I just ordered a Q7 and adapters.