[SFTphotography]

When you consider that there are ways a K-1 is inferior to a K-5, frame rate for example, the trend to more of what you don't want and less of what you want may continue, it certainly seems to be a trend.

I am ok with more pixels - being a landscape photographer - the more the merrier - but that's no use if there are lines all over the sky or water.

Frame rate - doubt I'll even trouble the 645z's 3fps. 1fps would be more than fine for me. A 500k shutter life might be more useful to some - given a 645z costs so much - an oddly short 100k seems remiss - the k1 can do 300k. Myself - I won't trouble the 100k life - but it would be nice to know it was longer given how much it cost me

Dynamic range increases - particularly at high ISO's would be welcome but nothing game changing has come out. The 645z is good - clean but DR falls off a cliff. Why can't it be totally clean at IS1600 with still 14 stops DR. That's useful...lines across the image is dreadful and if you buy a camera with on sensor PDAF that's what you will get.

[normhead]

I am ok with more pixels - being a landscape photographer - the more the merrier - but that's no use if there are lines all over the sky or water.

Tess and I have tried to prove the value of my k-1 for landscape over a K-5, we failed. SO more MP is not the answer in every case. But I'm still sure eventually there will be a case where it does make a difference. We just haven't been able to demonstrate it yet.

For us that does raise the question, even if we do find a case where we need more MP, will it be worth it to purchase it for the number of times it actually might make a difference. Everyone else of course will be different. Our usual canvas size is 20x30 inches, and we have prints on the walls big as 42x30 inches. I've never been able to determine at which point you need more than 16 MP empiracly, although many have suggested you might need more than that based on theoretical postulates that haven't been tested empirically.

[kaseki]

Tess and I have tried to prove the value of my k-1 for landscape over a K-5, we failed. SO more MP is not the answer in every case. But I'm still sure eventually there will be a case where it does make a difference. We just haven't been able to demonstrate it yet.

For us that does raise the question, even if we do find a case where we need more MP, will it be worth it to purchase it for the number of times it actually might make a difference. Everyone else of course will be different. Our usual canvas size is 20x30 inches, and we have prints on the walls big as 42x30 inches. I've never been able to determine at which point you need more than 16 MP empiracly, although many have suggested you might need more than that based on theoretical postulates that haven't been tested empirically.

I believe the reason why the camera taking an image to be printed for human viewing doesn't have to have the resolution implied by the number of dots on a print is that natural scenes have power spectral densities that are logarithmically dropping with spatial frequency. (See example below.) Humans have a limited eye resolution that degrades with contrast reduction, so when the scene is 7 orders of magnitude lower in power per cycle (over 20 stops) the contrast is way below the number of shades of gray that most can detect. Color only changes this argument in value, not in principle.

In this representative PSD of an image the abscissa is the log base 10 of the spatial cycles across the image. "2" represents 100 cycles. For a 30 inch image, this is only 1.5 inches. So fine detail is way off to the right. The ordinate is the relative power in each spatial frequency. Human eye resolution varies from half an arc minute at high contrast, to half a degree at very low contrast. So if one is viewing an image of the scene from a "natural" distance, one will not resolve the low contrast high spatial frequency content.

I would argue that higher than the resolution needed for natural viewing distance is deemed necessary because we all are pixel peepers at heart.

First example I came across in a quick search: Image Evolution Using 2D Power Spectra

[SFTphotography]

Tess and I have tried to prove the value of my k-1 for landscape over a K-5, we failed. SO more MP is not the answer in every case. But I'm still sure eventually there will be a case where it does make a difference. We just haven't been able to demonstrate it yet.

For us that does raise the question, even if we do find a case where we need more MP, will it be worth it to purchase it for the number of times it actually might make a difference. Everyone else of course will be different. Our usual canvas size is 20x30 inches, and we have prints on the walls big as 42x30 inches. I've never been able to determine at which point you need more than 16 MP empiracly, although many have suggested you might need more than that based on theoretical postulates that haven't been tested empirically.

If you print on paper - and at high DPI say 36 x 24 inch and look close more MP is better.

But I find print an old fashioned way to enjoy images, hook up your workstation to your 4k, or 8k if you are lucky TV say 65-85 inch and put your nose in it and you'll see that really K1 res is just the starting point. As screens move towards 8k or even 16k res 100mp seems much better and more future proof.

And I love to pixel peep - it's part of the enjoyment - looking at it on the screen - then going to 100% res pouring over all the details.

[normhead]

If you print on paper - and at high DPI say 36 x 24 inch and look close more MP is better.

If you look close, you don't see the most important element in photography, or any art, the composition. You can only see the differences in ver close comparisons. Not from a normal viewing distance.

hook up your workstation to your 4k, or 8k if you are lucky TV say 65-85 inch and put your nose in it and you'll see that really K1 res is just the starting point

I work on a 4k monitor and have a 55' 4k TV on my wall for displaying my images.. You're dead wrong here. I have already evaluated these things and for 4k, 12 MP does a fine job on 4k. K-1 res won't be necessary until we get to 8k. And even then, not from a normal viewing distance.

The problem you're going to have convincing me is it's happened before.
Someone told my they had to have. D800 selling their K-5, in preparation for 4k and presented all the same arguments.

8 years later Have a 4k TV and a K-1, and my wife is still shooting with a K-5. On a 4k TV K-5 and K-1 images are indistinguishable, even if you look close. The argument while theoretically supportable was absolute nonsense in reality.

Fooled once shame on you... fooled twice shame on me.
K-1 images will upscale nicely for 8k.

---------- Post added 02-20-21 at 08:09 AM ----------

I would argue that higher than the resolution needed for natural viewing distance is deemed necessary because we all are pixel peepers at heart.

An odd claim, unsupported by well, anything. The weird fascination of photographers with resolution is not shared by the general public.

[kaseki]

"I would argue that higher than the resolution needed for natural viewing distance is deemed necessary [by photographers] because we [photographers] are pixel peepers at heart." Photographers was the intended meaning of "we." Sorry for any confusion.

If I had written as edited above, perhaps it would be obvious that I was in agreement with your: " ... The weird fascination of photographers with resolution is not shared by the general public."