[w2ck]

Hi,

I used to do actually worthwhile shooting with 1.3 MP.


Yes. You read that correctly: One Point Three Mega Pixels.


That was a Nikon E series, or if you prefer, a Fuji DS-5xx series. A joint venture which predated the D1 series. All of 1.3 MP in a body the size of a P645 and giving full frame coverage of Nikon lenses with a 4:3 aspect ratio. That work was for web pages, so 1.3 MP was good enough. I'm still using a Nikon D1H for that same purpose. Still good enough.

But, there it is: Good Enough. Just like saying It's OK. And we all know what that means. Not Bad. Not really Good. Certainly not Great. Yup.

So, in effect Not Enough Pixels. More! Gimme More! And, that will never end, will it?

Next up: The Pentax 645Z follow on with the 150 MP imager.


Stan

[ThorSanchez]

I think the striping will be quite common, particularly for landscapers where there is sky etc. I've seen it - and it isn't pretty. I'd rather not have PDAF on sensor on a camera.

The Pentax K-70 has on sensor PDAF, so I'm sure it would be easy to find posts here of the countless photos ruined by banding or striping with the K-70.

If they exist.

[biz-engineer]

Experience from large prints, IMO, it's no so much about how many megapixels (although lots of megapixels avoid things like moire / false colors for certain images), it's more about the lenses and further enlargement is made possible by the larger area of image capture. e.g except for images of fabric, 50Mpixels with high quality lens is more storage efficient than 100Mp. It's about the lenses...