[TonyW]

I definitely want camel detection: there aren't many camels around here so it's advanced detection systems would be really helpful!

You do realise that even the state of the art camel detection can only recognise camels with two humps. Seeing just one hump it assumes a large squirrel and adjusts accordingly

[normhead]

@normhead : How do you think about the new sensor used in the Canon R5? I saw the results of the Canon R5 vs the sensor used in the Canon EOS 5DS R ? I once tested my K-1 vs the Canon EOS 5DS R and the sensor of the K-1 performed better in many regards. But now with the new sensor in the Canon R5 i saw amazing better results.

How about that ?

Interesting... but wouldn't a more reasonable comparison have been Canon R5 and K-1ii? It wouldn't surprise me for any newer camera to outperform an older camera, and Canon has always been great at squeezing good performance out of inferior sensors. I always wondered what would happen if they got their hands on a decent sensor. So that's all quite believable.

But I'd still have to see comparison images, taken same time, same place to agree with it. I have seen more nonsense posted about which camera was better than which, I tend to wait until DxO for noise performance and Imaging Resources for raw Resolution to make these kinds of evaluations. I know what I think, I want to see if the test sites in any way confirm my evaluations. If I think it's true, and the test sites think it's true, I'll go with it. General impressions made by users can be influenced by a number of factors not related to camera performance. I tend to take them with grain of salt. My own included.

When I find my self drifting towards such a conslusion, I go to test sites to see if their conclusions back me up. If they do, then I post.

[dadipentak]

You do realise that even the state of the art camel detection can only recognise camels with two humps. Seeing just one hump it assumes a large squirrel and adjusts accordingly

Did not know that--thanks for the heads up! Hopefully this will be amenable to a firmware update.

[LeeRunge]

Interesting... but wouldn't a more reasonable comparison have been Canon R5 and K-1ii? It wouldn't surprise me for any newer camera to outperform an older camera, and Canon has always been great at squeezing good performance out of inferior sensors. I always wondered what would happen if they got their hands on a decent sensor. So that's all quite believable.

But I'd still have to see comparison images, taken same time, same place to agree with it. I have seen more nonsense posted about which camera was better than which, I tend to wait until DxO for noise performance and Imaging Resources for raw Resolution to make these kinds of evaluations. I know what I think, I want to see if the test sites in any way confirm my evaluations. If I think it's true, and the test sites think it's true, I'll go with it. General impressions made by users can be influenced by a number of factors not relate to camera performance. I tend to take them with grain of salt. My own included.

DXO reviewed it, it’s good, especially DR which Canon has been weak on in these tests in the past. Probably fits in the pool of camera’s you listed in this thread for good image quality.

Canon EOS R5 Sensor review: A high water mark

I’m finding it interesting that these newer BSI sensors are taking steps backwards a bit in some cases with dynamic range to get more high ISO. I know I value lower ISO DR over high ISO noise personally but Nikon seems to have done that with the Z6/ii vs the Z5 which uses supposedly some varient of the D750’s sensor and actually has better DR than the Z6 at low ISO’s (It’s actually pretty good DR from the entry camera).

Pentax seems to always take a similar Sony sensor to what Nikon would use (D800/810 K-1, Sony A7R) and get a bit more out of it. I do like Nikons JPEG engine though compared to Pentax but in RAW that’s all irrelevant and it’s all personal preference on JPEG anyway.

[TonyW]

You are not going to get higher DR until more camera manufacturers use 16 bit and above A/D converters.

You cannot really get more than 14 stops DR from a 14 bit system or 16 stops DR from a 16 bit system. You can make the figures look good by shooting a back illuminated Stouffer step wedge with a 14 bit limited system and you may even come up with 14.5+ DR but that is not a real measure of what one can expect in the field. So while the figures may be useful it can only be useful in comparison to other systems measured in exactly the same way. I do not recall exactly but seem to remember the 645z not getting a full review published with one comparison site when its score was pretty high at over 100 - some conspiracy theorists went on to say....

In the real world you are going to loose a few stops due to noise and it could also be argued that your tolerance of noise may affect the real figures as you may be more or less accepting of the phenomena.

I much prefer the results from Bill Claff's site as they do echo closely what I have experienced in the field.

There are a few camera systems that capture 16 bit including some Phase 1 and some Hasselblads. According to Photons to Photos the Phase One IQ4 (16 bit) 150MP has a Photographic DR of 13.11 (the manufacturer quotes 15 from the 16 bit max). My Pentax 645Z maximum Photo DR = 11.77 (close enough to my own testing at a max of 12 stops) and the Pentax K-1 II max Photo DR =11.60.

There are many reasons that one may buy into a system and DR may be just only one and it may not have such a heavy weighting on your choice over other features and percieved benefits. When Nikon came up with a 2 DR stop advantage over Canon I do not think there was a mass professional migration from Canon to Nikon similarly when Olympus Pentax et al came up with Pixel Shift. The same must hold true with MP count I do not think I would change my 51MP system for a 75-100 MP system as apart from the cost I do not see any technical benefit.

Should Pentax jump from a small to a FF MF sensor of say quadruple pixel count i.e. 200 MP at the price of the current 645z I would certainly sit up and think

[Ash]

As we all know, there’s more to photography than megapixels and the real question is how many do we really need?

What are we doing with the images that we require such resolution?

[BarryE]

You are not going to get higher DR until more camera manufacturers use 16 bit and above A/D converters.

You cannot really get more than 14 stops DR from a 14 bit system or 16 stops DR from a 16 bit system. You can make the figures look good by shooting a back illuminated Stouffer step wedge with a 14 bit limited system and you may even come up with 14.5+ DR but that is not a real measure of what one can expect in the field. So while the figures may be useful it can only be useful in comparison to other systems measured in exactly the same way. I do not recall exactly but seem to remember the 645z not getting a full review published with one comparison site when its score was pretty high at over 100 - some conspiracy theorists went on to say....

In the real world you are going to loose a few stops due to noise and it could also be argued that your tolerance of noise may affect the real figures as you may be more or less accepting of the phenomena.

I much prefer the results from Bill Claff's site as they do echo closely what I have experienced in the field.

There are a few camera systems that capture 16 bit including some Phase 1 and some Hasselblads. According to Photons to Photos the Phase One IQ4 (16 bit) 150MP has a Photographic DR of 13.11 (the manufacturer quotes 15 from the 16 bit max). My Pentax 645Z maximum Photo DR = 11.77 (close enough to my own testing at a max of 12 stops) and the Pentax K-1 II max Photo DR =11.60.

There are many reasons that one may buy into a system and DR may be just only one and it may not have such a heavy weighting on your choice over other features and percieved benefits. When Nikon came up with a 2 DR stop advantage over Canon I do not think there was a mass professional migration from Canon to Nikon similarly when Olympus Pentax et al came up with Pixel Shift. The same must hold true with MP count I do not think I would change my 51MP system for a 75-100 MP system as apart from the cost I do not see any technical benefit.

Should Pentax jump from a small to a FF MF sensor of say quadruple pixel count i.e. 200 MP at the price of the current 645z I would certainly sit up and think

Comparing the 12 bit Ricoh GR to the now 14 bit GRiii shows me how the DR changes with bit depth in reality. A 16 bit architecture would be a step change in FF cameras.

Your close figures for the 645z compared with the K1ii will raise eyebrows amongst the 645z users. I've not handled the 645z in the field, but my limited test comparisons between it and a K1 have not shown any significant DR improvement in many use cases. Migrating to 16 bit would create much more usable and manipulatable data. This would be nice in the future and would incentivise me to spend rather than greater MPs.

[biz-engineer]

There is nothing int the real world that confirms this. It theory without empiracle examples. A theory isn't proved until there is empiracle evidence. Until then it's a hypothesis.

I understand that this is your opinion based on your own practice. Although I noticed something for myself (I wear glasses), I may not need 100Mpixels in the future as my vision up-close gets worse as I'm getting older. So maybe if I wait five more years I'll be fine with the 36Mpixels of the Pentax K1.

[normhead]

Comparing the 12 bit Ricoh GR to the now 14 bit GRiii shows me how the DR changes with bit depth in reality.

I compared my 12 bit K-x with my 14 bi K-5 and found little difference. Maybe you have something to show us demonstrating your point.

Although people have reported K-1ii files are easier to post process, and there was no change in bit depth. How can you be sure it was bit depth that made the difference? Even if something changed, attributing it to bit depth may be erroneous.

As well there is the law of diminishing returns, as pointed out recently discussing the lack of improvement in DxO scores going to 50 MP on FF. It may well be that 12 bit depth was optimum, 14 bit depth is overkill, and 16 bit would be un-noticeable. I'm not sure how much you can lean about a specific attribute of a camera like bit depth, when you don't know what else was improved.

[MossyRocks]

What are we doing with the images that we require such resolution?

For me it is some because I can, some because I shot a panorama while out in the field and plan on finding the best crop later when I am home and warm, some because I am trying to bring out faint fine details (astro shots). Most of the huge MP shots I take are astro images where I will do a super res upscaling (moon shots) so that I can get better alignment, or are ones where I do a 2x drizzle of deep sky objects to make better use of the data before going to a smaller size before export. I do like to tinker just because so if I have a shot that I can tinker with I figure why not and will go for it. I have had requests from friends and family for some shots that they want printed big in the 2'x3' or more range. The most recent image that others have wanted was one of an illuminated tree that was a stitched pano one I took in 2019 where the full size one (I was going for the find the best crop) was about 25,000 by 15,000.

Even my entry for February's official photo contest is a big stitched stacked image where the full size one weighs in at about 112mp before cropping. To get the shot my options where to use a lens that is reasonably close to the framing I want, go wider and give up detail, or really do a stitched image. So I chose option 1 but since I hauled out all the gear and was on a big tripod for shooting the frames for stitching I figured why not take some more shots to enable the ability to drive down the noise and also do a super res image. The taking of the extra shots was a small additional effort when compared to the effort to get up there and back, set things up and tear them down, and find the right spot so why not maximize the use of that effort.

Most of my photography is for my enjoyment and part of that is figuring out how to get the most out of it.

[normhead]

For me it is some because I can, some because I shot a panorama while out in the field and plan on finding the best crop later when I am home and warm, some because I am trying to bring out faint fine details (astro shots). Most of the huge MP shots I take are astro images where I will do a super res upscaling (moon shots) so that I can get better alignment, or are ones where I do a 2x drizzle of deep sky objects to make better use of the data before going to a smaller size before export. I do like to tinker just because so if I have a shot that I can tinker with I figure why not and will go for it. I have had requests from friends and family for some shots that they want printed big in the 2'x3' or more range. The most recent image that others have wanted was one of an illuminated tree that was a stitched pano one I took in 2019 where the full size one (I was going for the find the best crop) was about 25,000 by 15,000.

Even my entry for February's official photo contest is a big stitched stacked image where the full size one weighs in at about 112mp before cropping. To get the shot my options where to use a lens that is reasonably close to the framing I want, go wider and give up detail, or really do a stitched image. So I chose option 1 but since I hauled out all the gear and was on a big tripod for shooting the frames for stitching I figured why not take some more shots to enable the ability to drive down the noise and also do a super res image. The taking of the extra shots was a small additional effort when compared to the effort to get up there and back, set things up and tear them down, and find the right spot so why not maximize the use of that effort.

Most of my photography is for my enjoyment and part of that is figuring out how to get the most out of it.

So have you found a camera that actually does those things demonstrably better than a K-1ii? The false colour and moire I've seen on even D850 images in the finer details have led me to believe after a certain number of MP, you can create more problems than you solve. But I don't use hi-res cameras, so I'm curious as to why you think more MP over 36 MP is necessary.

[BarryE]

I compared my 12 bit K-x with my 14 bi K-5 and found little difference. Maybe you have something to show us demonstrating your point.

Norm you may be right that a direct comparison between the two GR models may not be just bit depth. I'm up to my neck working through probate stuff at the moment, but I will try and set up a comparison. Apologies if it slips my mind.

The GRiii files are what I hoped they would be compared with the older GR model. Even with the smaller pixel pitch, the GRiii/14-bit files have more latitude in post.

[normhead]

Norm you may be right that a direct comparison between the two GR models may not be just bit depth. I'm up to my neck working through probate stuff at the moment, but I will try and set up a comparison. Apologies if it slips my mind.

The GRiii files are what I hoped they would be compared with the older GR model. Even with the smaller pixel pitch, the GRiii/14-bit files have more latitude in post.

I was just commenting, no need to do anything. Since we don't know what else they changed, we wouldn't know what we were looking at, even if you're right. The important part is the new GR files are easier to work with with better results. The why of it isn't so important, cause honestly, we'll never know definitively.

---------- Post added 03-05-21 at 05:47 PM ----------

DXO reviewed it, it’s good, especially DR which Canon has been weak on in these tests in the past.

I know a number of togs who switched to Nikon from Canon for better dynamic range and were so happy they'll never go back. Like many things Pentax, they're closing the barn doors after the horses left.

[AggieDad]

There are some who would argue for fewer – but larger – pixels. A personal choice, I think.

[Ash]

The taking of the extra shots was a small additional effort when compared to the effort to get up there and back, set things up and tear them down, and find the right spot so why not maximize the use of that effort.

Most of my photography is for my enjoyment and part of that is figuring out how to get the most out of it.

Indeed, and for the most part, it is not the megapixels that makes a camera, but the combination of the UI, the responsiveness and the transportability of the camera. And for the vast majority of photographers, having a camera that has >100Mp to allow for a panoramic photo in one single exposure is superfluous. The "nice to have" feature that is not value for money is unlikely going to be enough of a differentiating factor that makes a good camera sell.