[spinach]

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

resolution you can't use -- because of the limits of bayer sensors and current lens resolution in concert. pictures would be sized right back down to be sharp again.

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.

sony's got a newly introduced 12Mp camera working low light miracles
nikon's 16Mp D4 series and canon's 18Mp 1D series are at the top of sports and event photography and still in production with new bodies recently introduced

i've yet to see a 5ds or d810 in the wild, but those lower res bodies have been in the field for years as solid workhorses showing no signs of stopping. this isn't like memory where one number going up represents the entire march of progress (which is also not true of memory -- it's gotten faster and bandwidth has gone up along with the density) -- if the actual information recorded is not increasing, a higher sample rate per a given area ("megapixels" in a given format) won't increase resolution. the 24Mp ff limit is also not a matter of "nobody needs more than that" -- obviously in a camera we hope to record all the information we possibly can, and for anyone looking to get all that data, the phaseone iq series is available if you're willing to put up your house as collateral (with 80Mp at 1:1 with 645 format, meaning fat pixels the whole way) -- the limit is physics. again, there are only two ff slr cameras over that limit, they're brand new, they're still not performing better than the 18Mp and 16Mp flagships in their lines.

"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."

that's because it's true at any resolution you shoot at.

[civiletti]

resolution you can't use -- because of the limits of bayer sensors and current lens resolution in concert. pictures would be sized right back down to be sharp again.

Which is why the k-3 does not produce higher resolution images than the k-5? [It does.]

[Gimbal]

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

No, APS-C is 2/3 the size of FF in both horizontal and vertical direction, thus 50/(1.5x1.5) = ca22, 36 = 16 and 24 = ca 10.

---------- Post added 03-25-2015 at 08:37 AM ----------

resolution you can't use -- because of the limits of bayer sensors

What limits?

I attached a Pentax Q to a Tamron 70-200, and while not razor sharp there is a lot more details then with the K5 attached. And that is with a 5.6 crop factor which equals roughly a 370Mp FF.

[jsherman999]

resolution you can't use -- because of the limits of bayer sensors and current lens resolution in concert. pictures would be sized right back down to be sharp again.


sony's got a newly introduced 12Mp camera working low light miracles

... using a different sensel tech that will eventually work its way into higher-resolution sensors - when Sony's ready, or when a competitor forces their hand. Also, even as it stands... I don't know that I'd trade all that resolution (36 or 50MP vs. 12MP) for slightly better SNR in extreme ISO levels. I crop much more often than I shoot at ISO 12,800 in very low light. YMMV.

nikon's 16Mp D4 series and canon's 18Mp 1D series are at the top of sports and event photography and still in production with new bodies recently introduced

FPS is a high-value criteria for those shooters - the D4 and the 1D are not significantly different than say the D800 in SNR, and the D800 gives more DR. The 16/18MP is what the D4/1D customer wanted to maintain the fastest burst rate.

... the 24Mp ff limit is also not a matter of "nobody needs more than that"... the limit is physics.

What are you referring to when you say "the 24MP FF limit"? Photozone, DXO, etc show higher MTF results from 36MP vs. 24 on FF for the same lenses. Theoretically we could see MTF gains with almost all current lenses up to around 75 or 100MP, depending on who you ask. (by the way 24MP @ FF is less lp/mm than the K5.)

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 03-25-2015 at 08:16 AM.

[LFLee]

most likely 36mp, as the new 50mp, Pentax can't afford it.
The 36mp sensor, is already close to two years (oct 2013) when Pentax FF come out... but Pentax always use 'older' sensor tech from Sony.

Sony A7RII will announce soon, rumor to be available on April, not sure if it will keep the 36mp sensor or the 50mp sensor.

Well, let see how much Pentax dare to charge it's users with a 2 years old sensors in it.

.... and see what Sony bring in A7RII, and for me, I will probably have a hard time deciding between A7RII and the Pentax FF.
competition is great.

[Winder]

and see what Sony bring in A7RII, and for me, I will probably have a hard time deciding between A7RII and the Pentax FF.
competition is great.

Rent the A7II and the Zeiss 55mm F/1.8. I almost bought the A7R for the better build over the A7, and I was going to use the Loxia 50mm so I was not concerned with the AF speed of the A7R. Then A7II came out with the better build quality, IBIS and I got a great deal on a 55mm F/1.8. Very, very impressed with the image quality.

My guess is that the A7II has the 36MP. The A9 line is rumored to launch at the end of this year and they will probably have a 36MP and 50MP version of that body.

[Lowell Goudge]

For me, since my use of full frame is really oriented to travel, landscape, and architecture, and I would always retain my K5 for long shots and wild life, I would want the ISO performance of the K5, therefore 36 MP is about right,

Who really needs 50MP anyway? Not for me, whre I might crop 45 MP away

[Big Dave]

I think that they should offer a 24mp and a 36mp. It wouldn't be difficult to do. I like 36mp, but my 24mp FF is faster and the 16mp K5II is handy as well.

[spinach]

I crop much more often than I shoot at ISO 12,800 in very low light. YMMV.

i compose my shots and crop the world with the camera, the old-fashioned way. any further crops are a matter of fitting an aspect ratio for print, exclusively.

FPS is a high-value criteria for those shooters - the D4 and the 1D are not significantly different than say the D800 in SNR, and the D800 gives more DR. The 16/18MP is what the D4/1D customer wanted to maintain the fastest burst rate.

higher fps, faster af, better snr still.

What are you referring to when you say "the 24MP FF limit"? Photozone, DXO, etc show higher MTF results from 36MP vs. 24 on FF for the same lenses. Theoretically we could see MTF gains with almost all current lenses up to around 75 or 100MP, depending on who you ask.

after 24 you get rapidly diminishing returns to the point of nill as to how much resolution an increase in photosites in a given area can add. if you want more pixels, get a bigger sensor. the 645z is pretty great, i hear, and the d before it was no slouch, either.

(by the way 24MP @ FF is less lp/mm than the K5.)

not really (not that it has anything to do with this)

[Kunzite]

If you want fewer pixels, get a smaller sensor

[osv]

after 24 you get rapidly diminishing returns to the point of nill as to how much resolution an increase in photosites in a given area can add.

mtf testing proves otherwise, every single time.

i'd say that you should actually try a 36mp camera, but some people do that, and still don't get it.

[spinach]

If you want fewer pixels, get a smaller sensor

i did that -- check my sig

[Dlanor Sekao]

Lets do the math....Pentax said it was going to be LARGER than 24mp.......and it sure isn't going to be 50mp so that is dead right out the door.
So....what is left ?.........36mp ? Its the only thing that makes sense at the moment.

[jsherman999]

i compose my shots and crop the world with the camera, the old-fashioned way. any further crops are a matter of fitting an aspect ratio for print, exclusively.

Well it's nice you always have the perfect FL with you at all times The rest of us actually crop for isolation occasionally and more MP are very useful for that.

Even when cropping just for aspect ratio, more MP to work with = potentially better prints.

24MP @ FF is less lp/mm than the K5

not really (not that it has anything to do with this)

Yes, really, and it has everything to do with this because you claimed 24MP is as high as a FF sensor should go... for some still-unclear reason.

24MP FF < 16MP aps-c in lp/mm in print or display. 24MP FF is in no way maxing out the body/lens MTF capability, just like the K10D did not max out at 10MP with any lens - which is about what 24MP becomes when cropped 1.5x. There are diminishing returns, of course, but you see the difference between 12/16/18MP and 36MP on FF in real-world results. I think diminishing returns with regards to MTF may be a more serious consideration at 75MP (FF).

[spinach]

Well it's nice you always have the perfect FL with you at all times The rest of us actually crop for isolation occasionally and more MP are very useful for that. (Please don't fall into the "I compose right the first time" cliche, a trope most pros and fine-art photographers laugh at BTW. They crop too.)

i crop for print aspect only and in batches, the rest i do with the camera ("they" is me; photography is exclusively what i do for a living). if you know the shot you're trying to get (which you do, if it's the shot you have to take week in and week out even as the subject and location change), why wouldn't you take that shot with your camera while you're on location rather than add extra (free) work later if you can help it?

also you can go to print from a half-resolution base image and nobody would know the difference -- and you'd still have an image at a higher resolution than most people's monitors and tv screens.