[jsherman999]

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.

That article is a mixed bag. It has some very good descriptions of things and some accurate data, but he's wrong about several things too. He focuses on per-pixel performance in that one section, vs. image results, and I think several of his ideas about the practical limits of resolution have been shown to be wrong. Both of those problems have been cited by other physicists and IC and sensor designers on dpreview. In fairness to Dr Clark (who's a planetary scientist, who uses digital photography - doesn't design it), it looks like the main article has not been updated since between 2004 & 2006 (when the 1DMII and 10D were being sold.)

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

The D4s also uses a completely different sensor than the D800 for example - different pixel tech = different results. It's not directly attributable the pixel pitch alone. Those bodies are also being sold to folks who value FPS quite a bit - both Nikon and Canon probably know from market research that the $5000+ bodies are bought by people who value throughput over resolution, and that if some of those same folks *do* also value resolution than they'll probably be able to handle buying something like a D800 as a second body

Marketing strategy has as much to do with pixel counts as current technological limitations.

.

[spinach]

The last fall back of the outflanked, go to the "all things being equal" arguments... in other words, rely on fantasy.

well, we are talking about something that doesn't exist, and comparing two objects that would be built in the present day using the same methods of manufacture, so yeah, all else is equal. current sensor designs with large pixels are manufactured still, in, as noted, the nikon D4/s, the canon 1D C/X and the current crop of medium format CCD and CMOS sensors. they all perform fantastically in low light.

as for film guys coming to digital, i'm a video guy, coming from tiny ccd dv cameras up to crop sensor slr and mirrorless cameras. mostly documentary shooting with available light. every bit of light i'm able to drink up is worth it, and in that regard the physical size of the sensor has made a much larger difference than number of pixels -- you won't know the difference between 2k and 4k in a theater projection, nor between 720 and 1080 (i've just tested this on a live audience, btw -- nobody noticed except the projectionist), but you will know the difference between video shot on a nikon 1 cx sensor and a d5300 crop sensor. you'll be able to get bigger prints with more pixels on the same sensor, but you won't print bigger -- sharpness will fall off and you'll downsample and see no real benefit compared to a camera with larger pixels (which will still do better in low light). one set of problems (pixelation) for another (softness), and you lose out on a camera that can damn near see in the dark.

i've been shooting film for all of six months, processed my own roll for the first time yesterday. optics is optics no matter what your medium, and it's much older than photography.

a backlit sensor is a whole set of problems i don't want.


---------- Post added 02-19-15 at 10:29 AM ----------

wait a sec -- how would film guys come in to talk about bigger pixels? at every sensitivity, i only hear about folks either going after the finest possible grain or for tones that fit what they're trying to do. most folks shoot 35 and the quest for ever finer grain is more akin to more photosites on a given sensor format.

[TomB_tx]

I will not buy the FF, if it doesn't feature an aperture sensing lever - that's it!

Agreed - if it doesn't sense aperture on all my SMC-M lenses I'm not interested. My old lenses do all I want - not interested in buying new ones. Without the aperture sensing linkage an OVF is a pain. My A7 is better in that case.
But I'm sure Pentax would rather sell bodies to folk who will buy new lenses instead of us old folkies. It also would need a viewfinder like my MX film camera: bigger and brighter than any other dSLR.

[drivingback]

If Pentax finally releases a Weather Sealed DA ultrawide angle lens, I'd be content with APS-C and won't consider buying FF. Note that I mentioned DA lens, cheaper, smaller and optimized for that APS-C sensor size.

But then again if FF + FA31 elevates pixie dust to another level...

[monochrome]

. . . . . . I haven't completely cleared all the $125 - $325 analog lenses and cameras out of my bags and shelves that no on seems to want at any price


. . . . . . so I probably won't buy a Pentax FF.

[Ron_Man]

I almost didn't buy a K-3 simply because Ricoh put it's name on the back.. but for the money it's an awesome camera and black tape is pretty cheap

[D1N0]

when it doesn't come with a complementary roll of black tape....

[devouges]

I will not ___Be-Able-to___ buy the FF if it costs too much

[Sqideyes]

I almost didn't buy a K-3 simply because Ricoh put it's name on the back.. but for the money it's an awesome camera and black tape is pretty cheap

This I don't understand. If it wasn't for Ricoh,there probably would not have been a K3 for you to buy. OR any future PENTAX cameras.

[SpecialK]

No "if"s. I have a FF and it is not Pentax, sorry.

[kooks]

I almost didn't buy a K-3 simply because Ricoh put it's name on the back.. but for the money it's an awesome camera and black tape is pretty cheap

Come on.. at least give some credit to the company that is saving the Pentax brand..

[Sandy Hancock]

I will buy the Full Frame, because I am confident Ricoh will get it right.

[Winder]

Last year I would have definitely bought it as soon as it came out. Since buying the A7m2 I'm on the fence about which system to expand. The A7m2 has been an impressive camera and the more I learn Sony crappy menu system and can take advantage of some of the unique features, the more I like the camera. What I like the most however is the Zeiss 55mm F/1.8.


I will probably wait until Ricoh updates the FA Limited lenses before I make a decision, but if the new K-3II has really good AF and a strong feature set, then I will probably go ahead and pre-order the FF.


So basically I'm running in circles between two systems. The advantage the Sony has it that its here on my desk right now, and the Pentax is a concept. The more I work with the Sony, the more I like it and the less time I spend cussing the menus.

[ElJamoquio]

Nothing is as easy as the Pentax menus.

However Sony improved upon the user interface of the Pentax - Sony's three dials are easier to use than Pentax's two... at least if you care to shoot manually.

[Winder]

Nothing is as easy as the Pentax menus.

However Sony improved upon the user interface of the Pentax - Sony's three dials are easier to use than Pentax's two... at least if you care to shoot manually.

I do shoot manually a good bit. I don't like the 3rd control dial on the back. Maybe I will get use to it. What I want is an aperture ring on the lens, Shutter speed on the front dial, and ISO on the rear thumb dial. I was hoping with the introduction of the Zeiss Loxia we would see this added with firmware. To my knowledge there is no way to move the ISO control to the rear thumb wheel, so even shooting the new 35mm F/1.4 (has aperture ring) you can't set it up that way. You end up with 2 redundant controls.


IF I put the 35mm F/1.4 on the camera the rear thumb wheel should automatically default to ISO as soon as I move the aperture ring out of the "A" position.


To use the rear dial, I still have to pull the camera down from my eye and change my grip. My hands are too big to operate the rear dial without changing my grip and stopping what I'm doing.


If the new A7rII has uncompressed RAW and the ability to remap ISO to the rear wheel I will pre-order it.