[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

However, the 42MP file means the crop is still. smaller than a K-3. YOu still get more magnification out of an APS-c crop sensor camera meaning even if you're Nikon shooter you probably still want your D500 for wild life and birding

As far as reach there is no difference between the 21mp D500 and the 46mp D850

And as far as the difference in between 24mp and a 21mp cropped sensor under most conditions you will never see a difference, even under controlled shooting it would be a coin toss for you to pick out the 24mp image.

[normhead]

Norm, I am sorry you feel attacked. It is great that you are happy with your K-1! ... but my words had nothing to do with your usage and everything to do with the continued discussion {in multiple threads} about where Pentax goes from here.

Let nothing get in the way of a good rant.

---------- Post added 09-19-17 at 08:24 AM ----------

And as far as the difference in between 24mp and a 21mp cropped sensor under most conditions you will never see a difference, even under controlled shooting it would be a coin toss for you to pick out the 24mp image.

I've seen a difference....when the image is heavily cropped, every little bit helps, but it is the difference between not enough detail and really really not enough detail. The difference in reach, which refers to the field of view is that the more MP gives the ability to crop to a smaller % of your image, creating the same resolution and higher MP count in, effectively creating more reach.

Funny, I remember you arguing vehemently that you could see the difference between 24 MP crop and 24 MP FF ( a 3% difference) when you wanted to argue K-3 vs D750 ) because of the 100 lw/ph difference. The difference between 21 and 24 is 12.5 % and you can't see the difference. Your perception of what you can see and can't see is affected by your opinion of the day, although that was a while ago. Maybe you've become smarter over time.

Even on an 8k screen, you aren't going to see any difference between a 16 MP image and a 51 MP image. The truth is these cameras are all over kill. Most of us don't have 4k monitors forget about 8k.That being said, if you're shooting wildlife at distance, the issue is how many MP can I pack into the crop area of my sensor. If you can get 24 instead of 21, there may be a few images where it does make a difference. It just won't be an everyday thing. Once your image size is cropped to 7 MP instead 8, you might actually see a difference on an 8k monitor or an 11x14 print. Even then, probably only noticeable with side by side comparisons. Choosing one or the other if you have to lurn your head to see the images and can't directly compare them, you won't see any difference between a 16 MP image and 36 MP image.

One of the forum members once ran a test with his photography class, and found a very pig number of his students couldn't tell the difference between a 72 dpi print and a 144 or 200 dpi print, even after a direct comparison. The value of resolution is vastly overrated. The biggest reason for preferring a 24 MP over a 36 or 46 is with the smaller MP count you can get a faster frame rate and squeeze more images into the same sized buffer. However the D850 seems to have solved that issue. The burst rate is about the same as a K-3, and the buffer is bigger.

No one in their right mind would sell a 21 MP camera just to get to 24 MP, but by the same token if you have 24 MP, why would you want to go back to 21 ? I do this all the time with the K-1 and K-3. I don't really care which I use in terms of the final image, but the K-1 has better low light capability. You really can't tell the difference in IQ looking at a computer monitor and as far as I can tell, taking a 12MP image down to 8 MP is just as effective as taking a 51 MP image down to 8 MP.

For most folks bragging about the MP count of their camera is bragging about how much extra capacity they throw away with each image.

To me the D850 is a bit of a disappointment in that they added an extra 6 MP that no one cares about when they possibly could have done better with noise and low light performance if they'd stayed at 36. I think they made the wrong choice, but, they know their customers and market better than I do so I'll just leave t as, they don't think the way I do.

MY daughter in law was up the other day with our K-x taking pictures of her dogs. She got some really nice pictures. I didn't get better with a K-3 and Tess didn't get better with a K-5 Most of this camera MP stuff is just silly. 12 MP is a lot if you are just taking pictures of your dog.

[brightseal]

......

[Lord Lucan]

Originally posted by Lord Lucan :-

at last, the K-1. But at an eye-watering price amd weight

... and ...

OTOH there is no significant reduction in the size of cameras (that are functionally equivalent) once you go below 35 mm.

Those two statements seem to be in conflict with each other.

I could have expressed it better, I was saying that a FF body could be made lighter and cheaper than the K-1, which is aimed at the pro market. and the very serious (and well heeled) amateur enthusiast market. That's OK for those markets, but Pentax could make lighter and cheaper FF cameras as well - they do not need to resort to APS-C to do so.

For example let's start with the Pentax KP : APS-C, 700g weight, 132mm wide, and half the price of a K-1. If we enlarged the KP into FF we would perhaps need to add a bit to its width, height and depth to accomodate the mirror box, which is mostly empty space anyway. You should not need to widen it more than 12mm or increase its height and depth more than 8mm each, those dimensions being the differences in sensor size. Then you would need a larger pentaprism, so more glass, but I calculate that would add only about 60 grams to the weight. The electronics and everything else could stay the same, except of course the sensor. I don't know what the price difference is between APS-C and FF sensors, but with the spectacular advances in digital tech generally since the first DSLRs came out, it should not be a lot. So in total, I claim those changes should not add anywhere near 310 grams to the weight, nor double the cost, of a KP.

So there we are : I have just "designed" a mid-range affordable FF Pentax. The fact that Pentax suddenly raised the price of the K-1 by about 30% when they saw that they was selling as fast as they could be made shows that these prices are pretty arbitrary anyway; they are simply what the marketing people think people will pay.

The K-3 is certainly smaller than the K-1.

Not a lot. The K-1 is only 10mm higher and deeper, and just 5mm wider. Those differences not worth worrying about IMHO. I was complaining (over-much perhaps) about the body weight of the K-1, not its size. As above, I claim a FF could be made lighter. My original point is that APS-C does not offer a significant enough reduction in size and weight from FF to maintain as a separate product line. APS-C did have its place in the early digital days when the difficulty and expense of making larger sensors was prohibitive, but those days have surely gone by now.

[reh321]

Originally posted by Lord Lucan :-

at last, the K-1. But at an eye-watering price amd weight

... and ...

OTOH there is no significant reduction in the size of cameras (that are functionally equivalent) once you go below 35 mm.


I could have expressed it better, I was saying that a FF body could be made lighter and cheaper than the K-1, which is aimed at the pro market. and the very serious (and well heeled) amateur enthusiast market. That's OK for those markets, but Pentax could make lighter and cheaper FF cameras as well - they do not need to resort to APS-C to do so.

For example let's start with the Pentax KP : APS-C, 700g weight, 132mm wide, and half the price of a K-1. If we enlarged the KP into FF we would perhaps need to add a bit to its width, height and depth to accomodate the mirror box, which is mostly empty space anyway. You should not need to widen it more than 12mm or increase its height and depth more than 8mm each, those dimensions being the differences in sensor size. Then you would need a larger pentaprism, so more glass, but I calculate that would add only about 60 grams to the weight. The electronics and everything else could stay the same, except of course the sensor. I don't know what the price difference is between APS-C and FF sensors, but with the spectacular advances in digital tech generally since the first DSLRs came out, it should not be a lot. So in total, I claim those changes should not add anywhere near 310 grams to the weight, nor double the cost, of a KP.

So there we are : I have just "designed" a mid-range affordable FF Pentax. The fact that Pentax suddenly raised the price of the K-1 by about 30% when they saw that they was selling as fast as they could be made shows that these prices are pretty arbitrary anyway; they are simply what the marketing people think people will pay.


Not a lot. The K-1 is only 10mm higher and deeper, and just 5mm wider. Those differences not worth worrying about IMHO. I was complaining (over-much perhaps) about the body weight of the K-1, not its size. As above, I claim a FF could be made lighter. My original point is that APS-C does not offer a significant enough reduction in size and weight from FF to maintain as a separate product line. APS-C did have its place in the early digital days when the difficulty and expense of making larger sensors was prohibitive, but those days have surely gone by now.

I've never designed a camera - I've never been that kind of engineer - I'm guessing that is true of you also. Your proposal sounds interesting, but there was some important "hand waving" covering several important unknowns.

(1) I don't know how much volume is taken up by K-1 components apart from the light path {including sensor}, so I don't know what minimum size of an FF camera actually is.

(2) Cameras are not sold dollar / cubic mm or dollar / gram. We have no reason to think that a smaller camera would cost less. In fact, back in the days of film, the unsophisticated (*) K-1000 was relatively inexpensive compared to the more svelte models.


(*) not wanting to offend people here for the second day in a row, I won't call it here what I thought when I was purchasing my svelte Super Program. I will say that it reminded me of the Praktica I had passed on a few years earlier.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I've seen a difference....when the image is heavily cropped, every little bit helps, but it is the difference between not enough detail and really really not enough detail.

The could you be so kind as to point to the image taken with a 21mp camera which are from the two 24mp cameras ?




here are the originals, and please no cheating from the exif data, if you do you many be in for a surprise

Funny, I remember you arguing vehemently that you could see the difference between 24 MP crop and 24 MP FF ( a 3% difference) when you wanted to argue K-3 vs D750 ) because of the 100 lw/ph difference.

as you can see there is more of a difference between the D750 and the K3 than you can see between the D500 at 21mp and a 24mp camera

The difference between 21 and 24 is 12.5 % and you can't see the difference.

At 100% crops we are taxing what the lens can project, at best between both that pixel density and what the lens can project you would be lucky if you would see an increase in captured resolution 4%


Here we can see how much the dfa 100mm f/2.8 is taxed when cropping a 6mp image from a 16mp camera and compared to a uncropped image taken with a 6mp camera. So you can only guess how much you would loose cropping at 2.4 X when using a 24mp .

If there is a difference can you please point to the image taken with the 21mp camera? is it image #1, #2 or #3 ? and again no checking the exif data.

No one in their right mind would sell a 21 MP camera just to get to 24 MP, but by the same token if you have 24 MP

How many D7200 and D7100 sold their cameras to get the D500 ? I am guessing quite a few did just that. Still waiting is it 1 2 or 3 ?

To me the D850 is a bit of a disappointment in that they added an extra 6 MP that no one cares about when they possibly could have done better with noise and low light performance if they'd stayed at 36.

All of the data I have seen says other wise

[monochrome]

Hello,


So you are basically telling me what I said, MPx' s don' t count. Ask yourself what counted in the case of Fuji for people to get excited, or for Sony to become such a big contender to Nikon and Canon.
Theta is a Gimmick. I see it in the `Selfie stick` department. Interesting pictures (if done in good places) , but not photography department (in my opinion) .


All the best!

Theta is about as much a gimmick as a GoPro - and the commercial applications of the patents may well save Ricoh (remember the compact camera plant write down to be refitted for automotive applications?)

[tregubovav]

I'm wondering, didn't anyone print photos? Or do you have fun to look them on monitor only?

P.S.
I see such battles on many forums for last ten more years. But result the same - vendors increase sensors' resolution and senstivity, customers continue buying to new cameras.

[leekil]

Originally posted by Lord Lucan :-

at last, the K-1. But at an eye-watering price amd weight

... and ...

OTOH there is no significant reduction in the size of cameras (that are functionally equivalent) once you go below 35 mm.


I could have expressed it better, I was saying that a FF body could be made lighter and cheaper than the K-1, which is aimed at the pro market. and the very serious (and well heeled) amateur enthusiast market. That's OK for those markets, but Pentax could make lighter and cheaper FF cameras as well - they do not need to resort to APS-C to do so.

For example let's start with the Pentax KP : APS-C, 700g weight, 132mm wide, and half the price of a K-1. If we enlarged the KP into FF we would perhaps need to add a bit to its width, height and depth to accomodate the mirror box, which is mostly empty space anyway. You should not need to widen it more than 12mm or increase its height and depth more than 8mm each, those dimensions being the differences in sensor size. Then you would need a larger pentaprism, so more glass, but I calculate that would add only about 60 grams to the weight. The electronics and everything else could stay the same, except of course the sensor. I don't know what the price difference is between APS-C and FF sensors, but with the spectacular advances in digital tech generally since the first DSLRs came out, it should not be a lot. So in total, I claim those changes should not add anywhere near 310 grams to the weight, nor double the cost, of a KP.

So there we are : I have just "designed" a mid-range affordable FF Pentax. The fact that Pentax suddenly raised the price of the K-1 by about 30% when they saw that they was selling as fast as they could be made shows that these prices are pretty arbitrary anyway; they are simply what the marketing people think people will pay.


Not a lot. The K-1 is only 10mm higher and deeper, and just 5mm wider. Those differences not worth worrying about IMHO. I was complaining (over-much perhaps) about the body weight of the K-1, not its size. As above, I claim a FF could be made lighter. My original point is that APS-C does not offer a significant enough reduction in size and weight from FF to maintain as a separate product line. APS-C did have its place in the early digital days when the difficulty and expense of making larger sensors was prohibitive, but those days have surely gone by now.

The Nikon D600 and D750, and even the D810 are lighter than the K-1, so clearly FF cameras *can* be made lighter. However, they have no SR mechanism, which could potentially increase the weight a lot if it includes solid metal parts.

Presumably a more plastic-bodied Pentax could be lighter. And Pentax did reduce the size & weight going from the K20D to the K-7/K5, with an improvement of specs, so there could probably be some optimization on the K-1 as well.

[brightseal]

21mp

image 1 is the 21mp

[normhead]

as you can see there is more of a difference between the D750 and the K3 than you can see between the D500 at 21mp and a 24mp camera

I'm confused, I pointed out that you can't on a 4k monitor you can't tell the difference between a 16MP image and a 36 MP image, so why would I even believe the comparison between a 21 or 24 MP image would be any different? I can't see what you are talking about. I don't see any meaningful difference between any of those files.

As stated, when the D800 came out, I posted images that showed that in the test images in some areas of the still life, the K-5 was better than the D800. Unless you are extremely rigorous you find what you look for, true or not, and that is a scientific fact. Both images taken at 5.6, I simply found a part of the image where the D800 didn't have the same DoF and was soft, where the K-5 with more DoF for the same ƒ-stop was sharp. You can find areas of photographs to prove whatever you want. But you are selecting the areas that prove what you want to prove and ignoring the ones that don't prove what you want to prove., which makes the comparisons pretty much meaningless.

Can you select parts of test images to prove what you want sure you can. I can too. The problem is, you believe that means something. And truthfully I don't see meaningful differences in any of your posted comparison images. I'm not putting my nose 6 inches away from eh screen and comparing with a magnifying glass, but most people don't do that. And given that they don't , these differences you draw you conclusions from are meaningless, except for the most obsessive of us.

as you can see there is more of a difference between the D750 and the K3 than you can see between the D500 at 21mp and a 24mp camera

I don't see that at all, although apparently you believe you do. Now let's move on to what's hidden in Area 51. I tend to see these kinds of posts as exercises in self delusion.

When the D800 came out, a forum member took a 20x30 K-01 image and hung it on his wall, next to a same sized D800 image taken at the same size and ask this wife to choose which she liked best. She said she like some parts of one, and some parts of the other and overall refused to pack a winner, declaring it a draw, That is independent testing. And that kind of testing cannot be understood by people breaking down images looking for minute to declare on better than the other. My point is, i the guy who paid $3k for the D800 thought he was getting a more pleasing image than the guy who bought the K-01 for $300, he was seriously deluding himself. I'm absolutely certain he can find reasons to convince himself he is getting better images, I'm also convinced he's delusional.

My guess is, in a real blind test, he himself might not like the higher res image more. And I'm also sure he could have found minute differences to convince himself one of the images was better and that it would have been 50/50 which image he picked.

I personally picked up a K-1 for one reason, better low light performance. 98% of my favourite images are still K-5 or K-3, after a year. The low light performance has made very little impact, and the extra resolution has meant next to nothing. I simply can't understand this constant obsession with such things. I still see the K-1 as a luxury it would be easy to live without.

[brightseal]

What you gonna do then?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I'm confused, I pointed out that you can't on a 4k monitor you can't tell the difference between a 16MP image and a 36 MP image, so why would I even believe the comparison between a 21 or 24 MP image would be any different? I can't see what you are talking about. I don't see any meaningful difference between any of those files.

This is why see your post below

I've seen a difference....when the image is heavily cropped, every little bit helps, but it is the difference between not enough detail and really really not enough detail. The difference in reach, which refers to the field of view is that the more MP gives the ability to crop to a smaller % of your image, creating the same resolution and higher MP count in, effectively creating more reach.

So if you can see any difference you should be able to point your finger to the image that was taken with a 21mp camera and the ones taken with the 24mp
Here they are again

So if you as you say "I've seen a difference....when the image is heavily cropped"

then it should be rather simple to determine the one taken with the 21mp from these 100% crops when viewed at 24mp resolution? Or is it as I say that the difference in reach going from 21mp to 24 mp under most conditions and even controlled shooting you would not even notice it?

As you have stated above that you cannot see a difference then I should be able to conclude that you cannot see a difference in reach between 21mp and 24mp

If you think that going from 21mp to 24mp of resolution is going to give much of a benefit in reach please workout how much reach that is.
the difference in between 24 and 21 mp would only give you additional reach with a crop factor of 1.09 times
Using a 300mm lens that would equate a reach benefit of only 320mm equivalent.

[normhead]

Which is exactly my point. The relevance of more MP in images is vastly overrated. The one difference being my small bird images where every bit of detail often counts on rare occasion. I suspect there are more times when the extra MP would make a difference birding, but even then, it's not a given. If the system you are using resolves all necessary detail, adding more MP is a waste of resources.

A decision should be made on other features if one is shopping for a camera. Any camera with 12 MP is good enough for any but those selling to museums or high end galleries. After that it's all about how much overkill are you willing to pay for.

I tend to go at the things a little differently in my own tests.

I set up target, and keep moving the camera backwards until the camera lens combination can no longer resolve part of the image. Then I try the higher MP camera to see if it can resolve the image. I like to provide a range. fine detail up to 20 feet for the smaller MP sensor might translate into 22 feet for the larger MP sensor. You might get a couple of extra feet of fine resolution, but for 0-20 feet you don't need the larger MP image, and for 22 feet to infinity both are inadequate. The improvement one gets adding more MP is negligible even in a theoretical best case scenario. It might get you and extra couple of feet of clarity.

That being said, everything else being equal, for maximum resolution if that's important, I wouldn't trade a 24 MP camera for a 21 MP camera. But also, other things are not equal. One might prefer the faster frame rate on the 21 MP camera. Anything over 16 MP you can safely make your purchasing decisions based on other features besides MP.

[tregubovav]

Which is exactly my point. The relevance of more MP in images is vastly overrated. The one difference being my small bird images where every bit of detail often counts on rare occasion. I suspect there are more times when the extra MP would make a difference birding, but even then, it's not a given. If the system you are using resolves all necessary detail, adding more MP is a waste of resources.

A decision should be made on other features if one is shopping for a camera. Any camera with 12 MP is good enough for any but those selling to museums or high end galleries. After that it's all about how much overkill are you willing to pay for.

I tend to go at the things a little differently in my own tests.

I set up target, and keep moving the camera backwards until the camera lens combination can no longer resolve part of the image. Then I try the higher MP camera to see if it can resolve the image. I like to provide a range. fine detail up to 20 feet for the smaller MP sensor might translate into 22 feet for the larger MP sensor. You might get a couple of extra feet of fine resolution, but for 0-20 feet you don't need the larger MP image, and for 22 feet to infinity both are inadequate. The improvement one gets adding more MP is negligible even in a theoretical best case scenario. It might get you and extra couple of feet of clarity.

That being said, everything else being equal, for maximum resolution if that's important, I wouldn't trade a 24 MP camera for a 21 MP camera. But also, other things are not equal. One might prefer the faster frame rate on the 21 MP camera. Anything over 16 MP you can safely make your purchasing decisions based on other features besides MP.

normhead you mention is still correct when you look photos via HD/4K or even 5K monitor/TV.
But it's still not true when you print photos in ISO A3 () or lager formats.
I see the differences with images made by K10D, K-5 and K-3 with the same lens and similar scenes non only the screen. Good downsizing algorithm can save details contrast and colors which you do loose when you take photo in lower resolution.

IMHO.