Originally posted by gaweidert Yes. If a K5, K3 or K1 are all covering the same field of view the K1 will have 50% more pixels to work with than the K3 and 100% more than the K5. When I started looking at the images from my K1 I was highly impressed with the image quality, (I was going to say blown away, but it is an overused term.) I still use my K3 with my K1 as it complements the K1 quite nicely in the field. My K5 and K5 IIs sit mostly unused. To me the K1 is the first digital camera that I have owned that makes me not long for films such as Kodachrome 25.
You only get more pixels to work with if you don't crop. Using the same lens... if you crop this much or more, you would have better resolution and use more pixels, with a K-3.
K-1 cropped image....
K-3 uncropped image
K-1 uncropped
Take the K-1 off the camera and put the K-3 on, and again you get higher resolution (more pixels, on the subject).
There's a thing happening. If you crop the K-1 image barely at all, a K-3 would have given you more resolution with the same lens. But, if you are able to walk in a bit and fill the frame with the K-1 that will give you more resolution. But whether or not a K-1 gives you more resolution than a K-3 is circumstantial, because of the difference in pixel density.
And the weight cost of shooting with an equivalent lens is prohibitive, much of the time, especially for telephoto work.
Saying you have 50% more pixels is also misleading in that a K-1 is 7360x 4912, a K-3 images 6016x4000.
The horizontal increase in pixels, is 22%
The vertical increase in pixels 19%.
In combination the increase in resolution is at best about 33% The 50% stat is the most favourable (to the K-1) way of expressing the advantage of the K-1 and the one that's least relevant to your photography.
Or look at it this way, 67% of the resolution for less than half the cost, or if you're looking at a K-70 , for 1/3 of the cost. You better be good at convincing yourself you need that extra resolution.
I really like my K-1, but for me, it's a nice to have, not a have to have. The K-3 is "have to have". But for folks who have more control over their shooting situation, I can see the situation being reversed. It's not all about squirrels.