[Danaher Dempsey]

Have I got this correct?

I acknowledge that for Facebook upload photos, it does not require a high resolution photo. There is no need to purchase high quality photographic cameras for Facebook.

What about the iMac 27" Retina 5k screen? 14.7 million pixels 5120 x 2880

If I am taking photos for viewing directly on the iMac, will I be able to detect the output of cameras that produce higher resolution photos as superior?

Assuming the use of fabulous lenses, where is line at which the high resolution quality will be of value or not?

K100d 6 MP
K10d 10 MP
K20d 14 MP
K30 16 MP
K3 24 MP

For Facebook the K100d is great .... but what about for the iMac 27" Retina 5k 14.7 million pixels 5120 x 2880

Thanks,

Dan

[Adam]

Have I got this correct?

I acknowledge that for Facebook upload photos, it does not require a high resolution photo. There is no need to purchase high quality photographic cameras for Facebook.

What about the iMac 27" Retina 5k screen? 14.7 million pixels 5120 x 2880

If I am taking photos for viewing directly on the iMac, will I be able to detect the output of cameras that produce higher resolution photos as superior?

Assuming the use of fabulous lenses, where is line at which the high resolution quality will be of value or not?

K100d 6 MP
K10d 10 MP
K20d 14 MP
K30 16 MP
K3 24 MP

For Facebook the K100d is great .... but what about for the iMac 27" Retina 5k 14.7 million pixels 5120 x 2880

Thanks,

Dan

The more the merrier. Get the K-3

[Na Horuk]

Assuming the use of fabulous lenses, where is line at which the high resolution quality will be of value or not?

You need to define your needs, like MP, digital noise (more MP more noise, many still prefer the 16MP sensor over the newer 20 and 24MP in this regard), budget (you can get slightly older technology with less MP for a really low price these days), and storage space (more MP means bigger files, need more space, better CPU to process and view). If you only resize photos to send them by email, post them to facebook, and so on, then like you said, K10D is good enough; better to spend the rest of the budget on other things. If you want to make large prints (bigger than A4), if you want to take photos and do a lot of cropping (to increase apparent magnification), then it might be worthwhile to get higher MP. You can notice the difference between low and high resolution photos on any screen by simply zooming in/magnifying the photo. You can try this right now - just go find a full size photo taken with K-3 and download it alongside a full size photo taken with K10D. With a high resolution 5k screen, I think these differences would be more apparent than usually (as long as you don't resize the photos), bu the actual differences will be no different in absolute terms. Its a thing of compromises and appearances.

As Adam said, the more the better. Great lenses will appear even better on higher resolution cameras. Do we all need it? No. Will it be noticeable? In some conditions, if you know what to look for. Should you buy the latest technology? Yes. Should lenses have priority over cameras? Yes (buying a lens is better investment, can be used for years, decades, on various cameras; digital camera only loses value over time). Is other gear, like tripod, flash, critical for obtaining a truly great photo? Fairly often.

[jrpower10]

If the intent is to view them on a 14 MP screen, then I don't see how anything beyond 14 MP will help. One thing to consider, though, is the extra resolution of the K-3 will allow more cropping and still maintain maximum screen resolution.

[MJSfoto1956]

I would go a bit further -- "viewing" resolution is directly related to viewing distance. E.G. If you are looking at a billboard from 100 ft away then 10 dpi is more than adequate. One clear difference between a high-res display and high-res print is that you are unlikely to put your eyeball 6 inches away from the screen, whereas a print you might be inclined to do so if the image draws you in. As such, I would go out on a limb here and state that 5Mp is likely more than enough to "fill" a 27" screen -- regardless of its inherent specified "resolution".

Michael

[Danaher Dempsey]

Michael stated: As such, I would go out on a limb here and state that 5Mp is likely more than enough to "fill" a 27" screen -- regardless of its inherent specified "resolution".

============

The deal is.... I have a fairly extensive collection of Nikon 1 lenses and a Nikon V1 "10MP". I do like that camera's size. I would be even happier with a Nikon V2 for handling. Nikon 1 is very nice for hiking and biking and the video is OK for my limited use.

On the other hand, I have a k100d "6 MP" that has great color. Both the V1 and the k100d leave a lot to be desired in low light situations.

I have some OK but not super older FA lenses from film days and a couple of "A" lenses (Lester Dine 105 f/2.8 macro and Vivitar series 1 70-210 komine v3 f/2.8-4) ... Every lens I own is FF ready.

I guess I am going to sit on the bench until I buy that iMac 27" 5k ... and figure out where to go next. For inside winter sports neither the k100d nor the V1 is very good because of low light in many school gyms. My major interest going forward is landscape.
I really like the V1 for macro work -- love the Macro stuff from Thomas Stirr

Guess I will wait for Pentax FF and Nikon V4 .... and then perhaps buy a k3 or V4
or just forget this line thinking and use my 6x7 Bronica and scan film. With this many choices I am going to wait for a while.

Thanks to all who put in their 2 cents thus far.

-- Dan