[Sandy Hancock]

24mp on APS-C for the reach and 24 on FF for wide angle and low light performance would make an awesome duo. The significant prosumer appetite is much harder to please then the smaller pro market though.

I completely agree. I wonder if Ricoh's accountants will too.

36 will still be awesome.

[rawr]

Lots of people write goofy things.

Like Nikon themselves in their D800 Technical Guide (PDF 3MB).

At the high resolutions off ered by the D800/D800E, even the slightest camera shake can result in blur.

etc etc etc

[mecrox]

24mp on APS-C for the reach and 24 on FF for wide angle and low light performance would make an awesome duo. The significant prosumer appetite is much harder to please then the smaller pro market though.

That's a very good point, but from Ricoh's POV, what will get people to splash the cash on all those new lenses? I'd have thought that part is very important. I'd guess this is where ye olde marketing wins and so 36 mpx is more appealing, much more of a step change over APS-C. A less costly 24 mpx camera can be introduced later, after the show is on the road.

[Sandy Hancock]

etc etc etc

I don't understand how a good shot on a lower resolution sensor can become a bad shot on a higher resolution sensor.

Surely all it does is increase the sensitivity of pixel peeping, rather than affect any meaningful output.

---------- Post added 24-03-15 at 08:44 PM ----------

That's a very good point, but from Ricoh's POV, what will get people to splash the cash on all those new lenses? I'd have thought that part is very important. I'd guess this is where ye olde marketing wins and so 36 mpx is more appealing, much more of a step change over APS-C. A less costly 24 mpx camera can be introduced later, after the show is on the road.

For what it's worth, I would actually pay more for the 24, because it will do things the 36 can not and the extra resolution is pretty meaningless. If I want to use crop lenses I will use my K-3.

[philbaum]

are you sure with regard to DR it looks to me as if the D810 is ahead of the game to me

Like Nikon themselves in their D800 Technical Guide (PDF 3MB).
etc etc etc

I assumed that when i provided the link to the DXO data, it would also show the chart that i could see. When you click on the "measurements" tab, and then on the dynamic range tab, you get this:



The orange line is the D750, and its greater than the D810 camera at almost all iso's except for 50 iso.

All those pixels slow down the burst rate and processing rate. Plus the warning in that Nikon brochure is not something i want to engage in. Anyway, lets see what Ricoh produces and than buy accordingly. I'm not some robot thats going to buy everytime a mfr says "more mp".

[spinach]

there's no point to going over 24 on a 35mm sensor (or 16 on aps-c), i'd rather see a low pixel count with better color calibration and higher snr than even a 36-40Mp 35mm camera, let alone a 50. for more resolution, there's the z.

it's probably gonna be 36 though.

- Model A: $3500, 50Mpixels, 24Mpixels in crop mode (same as K-3)
- Model B: $2400, 36Mpixels, 16Mpixels in crop mode (same as K-5IIs)
- Model C: $1600, 24Mpixels, 12Mpixels in crop mode (same as Kx)

aps-c is 2/3 of ff though it'd be more like 50~33, 36~24, 24~18 wouldn't it?

As much as I want a FF Pentax DSLR, my problem is lack of lenses for the platform. Yes they are releasing long zooms for it. But there are no serious short lenses available or even planned for this platform.

there's the 31 fa limited, the sigma 35 art, a sigma 24-70 zoom and samyang/tokina/rokinon lenses that go even wider, and zeiss 25 & 35 screwmount lenses, to say nothing of all the available lenses going back to the beginning of the k-mount and the m42 screwmount.

...from Ricoh's POV, what will get people to splash the cash on all those new lenses? I'd have thought that part is very important.

there are two ff dslr cameras over 24 megapixels. canon's flagship is at 18, nikon's 16, each with great af, low noise and fast burst, great ergonomics and calibration options absent from lower end cameras. Mp in particular seems like not even a secondary consideration for ff cameras. nobody who's handled cameras would consider a 1DC or a 5D Mk III a downgrade from a rebel t6 even though the rebel has higher resolution; nor a d4s a downgrade from a d7200; a 24Mp or lower ff pentax wouldn't be considered a downgrade from a k-3.

[civiletti]

Like Nikon themselves in their D800 Technical Guide (PDF 3MB).
etc etc etc

The goofiness exists in the mind of the photographer who understands this to mean that the high resolving ability of the camera will lead to worse images.

---------- Post added 03-24-15 at 01:38 PM ----------

there's no point to going over 24 on a 35mm sensor

The point would be higher resolution. You may not want it, but others do.

---------- Post added 03-24-15 at 01:45 PM ----------

canon's flagship is at 18, nikon's 16

These cameras are used by pros doing photography that Pentax's system does not support well, and likely never will.

---------- Post added 03-24-15 at 01:54 PM ----------

So the D750 with 24mp is superior in DR to the D810 and far superior to a K3.

That depends on one's photography. I would use the D810 at iso 50 almost all the time, which would give me DR the D750 cannot match.

[philbaum]

That depends on one's photography. I would use the D810 at iso 50 almost all the time, which would give me DR the D750 cannot match.

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive. This is not about your photography or my photography. Its about trying to understanding the pros and cons of various features.

E.g. More mp, such as 36, will likely get one more resolution, but slightly less dynamic range than say a sensor sized at 24mp. The worlds full of trade-offs. Of course, the generation of different sensors will also affect the comparison. By showing the graph, the effect becomes quite obvious. The graph of the A7s is really interesting. I was trained as an engineer, and you very quickly learned to objectively compare one option against another option for the best compromise for a particular client. No value judgements - just the facts.

[jsherman999]

I don't understand how a good shot on a lower resolution sensor can become a bad shot on a higher resolution sensor.

That's because it can't.

Nikon's guide was meant to do two things:

1) Try to explain to a potentially-concerned pixel-peeper why 100% view at 36MP could look "worse" than 100% at, say, 12MP (or wherever the shooter was coming from.) The actual images can not look any worse at the same display sizes, but 100% peeps will be magnified more and could show more hand motion blur to the viewer if shutter speeds were an issue.

Note that the exact same blur is present in the 12MP shot - less MP isn't some magical way to make your hand steadier! - but you don't notice it in the same way at 100% because what you could see at 12MP is simply masked by less resolution.

2) Try to sell new lenses. The 'recommended' lenses in their guide has been the subject of jokes on dpreview because it contained some lenses that actually resolve less than some lenses that were left off - but cost less (or were not in production any more.)

More MP can never make worse shots than less MP, as long as SNR/DR is not compromised in a way visible to the shooter**. It's a myth that doesn't stand up to scrutiny that "in order to get good shots with more MP, you need better technique or better lenses." Complete myth.


** Re the D750/D810 DR 'difference' - probably getting close to the threshold where you can't really notice any significant delta in practice.

[mecrox]

there are two ff dslr cameras over 24 megapixels. canon's flagship is at 18, nikon's 16, each with great af, low noise and fast burst, great ergonomics and calibration options absent from lower end cameras. Mp in particular seems like not even a secondary consideration for ff cameras. nobody who's handled cameras would consider a 1DC or a 5D Mk III a downgrade from a rebel t6 even though the rebel has higher resolution; nor a d4s a downgrade from a d7200; a 24Mp or lower ff pentax wouldn't be considered a downgrade from a k-3.

Canon and Nikon have the benefit of FF catalogues and a range of cameras which have been developed over several years. They include some lower-res but highly capable cameras optimized for sports and PJs or other professional users, a market in which Pentax has no presence (and no comparable professional network behind them), as well as some lower-res but also lower-spec offers like the D610 or the 6D. It's easy to forget that Nikon and Canon can cover the field in some depth, from 50 mpx on down, and for all sorts of photographers. Pentax are not in this position. They have pretty well one shot at getting this off the ground. For that reason Pentax are constrained in the way their competitors are not. Who knows what Pentax will choose, but imho 36 mpx looks very likely. Comparisons between Canon, Nikon and Pentax are not comparing like with like.

[osv]

Like Nikon themselves in their D800 Technical Guide (PDF 3MB).
etc etc etc

didn't ricoh said the same thing about the 6mp k100d? lol

"Since most cameras are programmed to select a slower shutter speed in the dark, even the slightest movement of the camera or subject can cause blurred images."
K100D Super : Digital SLR Cameras | RICOH IMAGING

[civiletti]

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive. This is not about your photography or my photography. Its about trying to understanding the pros and cons of various features.

E.g. More mp, such as 36, will likely get one more resolution, but slightly less dynamic range than say a sensor sized at 24mp. The worlds full of trade-offs. Of course, the generation of different sensors will also affect the comparison. By showing the graph, the effect becomes quite obvious. The graph of the A7s is really interesting. I was trained as an engineer, and you very quickly learned to objectively compare one option against another option for the best compromise for a particular client. No value judgements - just the facts.

I have no reason to be defensive, and was not being so. It is true that I would choose the D810, partially for greater dynamic range at the iso I would use. Choosing a camera should always be about the photography one intends to do with it.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

That's because it can't.

Nikon's guide was meant to do two things:

1) Try to explain to a potentially-concerned pixel-peeper why 100% view at 36MP could look "worse" than 100% at, say, 12MP (or wherever the shooter was coming from.) The actual images can not look any worse at the same display sizes, but 100% peeps will be magnified more and could show more hand motion blur to the viewer if shutter speeds were an issue.

Note that the exact same blur is present in the 12MP shot - less MP isn't some magical way to make your hand steadier! - but you don't notice it in the same way at 100% because what you could see at 12MP is simply masked by less resolution.

2) Try to sell new lenses. The 'recommended' lenses in their guide has been the subject of jokes on dpreview because it contained some lenses that actually resolve less than some lenses that were left off - but cost less (or were not in production any more.)

More MP can never make worse shots than less MP, as long as SNR/DR is not compromised in a way visible to the shooter**. It's a myth that doesn't stand up to scrutiny that "in order to get good shots with more MP, you need better technique or better lenses." Complete myth.


** Re the D750/D810 DR 'difference' - probably getting close to the threshold where you can't really notice any significant delta in practice.

+1
I will also add that the D810 holds a resolution advantage allowing one to use NR to reduce noise while still holding the same resolution as the D750 with less visual noise present in processed image. While this does not increase the DR per say it does however changes the visible level of noise in the image allowing for more shadow lifting ( usable DR in photography) DXO does not take this into consideration when they scale the images to 8mp for their graphs.

[Winder]

These conversations always remind me of:
"Nobody Will Ever Need More Than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981


First it was 6MP - who needs more?
Then 10MP - just not practical.
12MP was the magic number! Nobody needed more than 12MP
16MP - The Mega Pickle race is OVER!
24MP is now the new perfect number.

The Real Megapixel Myth
Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise - DxOMark
The Online Photographer: Myths About Megapixels (...And, Does the D800 Have Too Many?)

The problem is that most of assumptions people make about mega-pickles is false. Just go get a camera with one huge pixel and be happy.

[virusn3t]

I will wait until the real specs of the mockup are disclosed, before rant above whathever thing i dont like about the camera

But i like the 36mpx idea