Originally posted by normhead I really am ambivalent about the 24 Mp on the K-3 Jay. The AF is by Pentax standards to die for, and some sources say as good as the Nikon D7100... If they had the K-3 AF on a 16 MP with the Dynamic Range of a K-5camera I'd be tempted, and I'm definitely going to give the 20 Mp, KS-2 a look.
I read one magazine, think it was Pop. Photo. that thought the K3 static AF at low light was superior to the D7100.
I bought the K3 for its AF, not its 24mp. But yesterday, i heard about a chance to get some owl pics, so went out with my DA300 (my longest lens), a 1.4 Tamron converter and my K3. The great horned owl was up high in a tree and the 2 chics were up in another nearby tree. I was too lazy to carry my heavy tripod so i carried a threaded walking stick. Except it was too short for the angle on the tree. So i held the walking stick with one hand and held the camera with the other hand. (i hope noone took my picture
) But i ended up with a very few possibles, and when i enlarged one, it was a pretty decent one of single chick with its yellow eyes visible. Wouldn't have been able to enlarge that pic without those 24 useless mega pixels. So maybe there;s a paradigm here, that all those pixels, besides resolution, are also useful for tele lens extenders.
Originally posted by jsherman999 I will say that if manufacturers drop the ball in AF in any way, 50+MP is going to make more people upset than ever. PIxel-peepers will see AF errors more clearly, there will be a lot of angst, people will be upset about buying 50MP FF and not seeing razor-sharp results at 100%.
36MP is really all I think I want/need. I'm sure I'll be able to talk myself into more later.
Yep, i'm now a believer in MP. Isn't that what smart phones are all about - zooming with mp. MP are a lot lighter than heavy glass to carry around. Need to wait till i my next laptop upgrade however.