[Edgar_in_Indy]

How did people shooting slides (virtually no pp ability, or RAW)
using manual focus and manual exposure settings
ever manage to take good photos?

Manual focus is much easier on a larger-format camera. I recently acquired a Pentax MX 35mm DSLR, and was amazed at how much larger the viewfinder is on that compared to my K-x. I actually could judge focus easily on the MX, while the K-x viewfinder is mostly just useful for framing the shot.

As far as exposure, I almost always shoot fully manual, and it's not that tough with enough experience. Of course I don't have to worry about wasting film if I misjudge exposure, but I consider that to be a good thing. And being able to manipulate RAW images is a very good thing. No doubt about it, we certainly have things easier these days as digital photographers.

on CD cover:

taken on 2Mp Canon Digital ELPH S100 p&s circa 2000

Cool picture. Now try taking the original image and cropping just the head and then print an 8x10 from the cropped image, and see what you end up with.

I was not seriously involved in photography in the film days, but it seems that more resolution was still sought after back then, and that there were even "megapixel wars" of a sort, with the different film sizes.

[UnknownVT]

All of the above reasons are why I'm annoyed when people moan about the "megapixel" wars. There seems to be a knee jerk reaction among some people to "just say no" to more megapixels, without fully considering the advantages of increased resolution.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion - even if you call my post a knee jerk reaction.

I did not say anywhere that more megapixels was not good -
only as you said yourself -
it is not a substitute for sloppy work
(your words not mine, neither did I imply that you do sloppy work
why the animosity?)

Cool picture. Now try taking the original image and cropping just the head and then print an 8x10 from the cropped image, and see what you end up with.

thanks -
hmmm... it's really of lesser value because I can't blow it up?

[Edgar_in_Indy]

so where is the animosity coming from?)

I wasn't trying to be abrasive, so I apologize if I came across too strongly. As you said, everybody is entitled to their own opinions.

Okay, so I've said my piece in favor of more megapixels in future Pentax DSLRs. What is your opinion? Are you in favor of staying at 12MP? Or would you like to see more, or less, megapixels in future DSLRs / ILCs?

[rawr]

High ISO IQ guys, that's what the discussion was originally about...

[Edgar_in_Indy]

thanks -
hmmm... it's really of less worth because I can't blow it up?

2mp or 20mp, It's a great image. The matter of "worth" probably depends on who you ask and the intended use of the photo. I would propose that the original image file would have more technical "worth" if it had more resolution, since it could be blown up larger, and details could be focused on. But either way, it's a great photo taken with the camera that was available at the time. It just goes back to the point we were discussing of the potential advantage of more megapixels than the K-x offers.

[UnknownVT]

High ISO IQ guys, that's what the discussion was originally about...

Sorry, you're right -
to my eyes there isn't much improvement, if any, on HighISO IQ of the K-5 over the K-x -
that's in spite of the higher Mp.

However just so it's understood -
I too would like much higher Mp
BUT with improvements to HighISO IQ - first.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Sorry, you're right -
to my eyes there isn't much improvement, if any, on HighISO IQ of the K-5 over the K-x -
that's in spite of the higher Mp.

However just so it's understood -
I too would like much higher Mp
BUT with improvements to HighISO IQ - first.

Agreed on both counts.

[rawr]

I too would like much higher Mp
BUT with improvements to HighISO IQ - first.

Well, I think it is probably fair to say that the K-5's performance (megapixel for megapixel) is no worse than the K-x's at high ISO, so that is in the K5's favour.

But the differences probably aren't big enough to notice most of the time, unless you simply take the K5 to places (eg 25600 ISO) where the K-x just cant go.

Resolution is another area that is interesting in the comparisons between K-x and K-5 high ISO. At high-ISO the K-x has a very good ability to hang onto good resolution, especially in RAW. The K-5 does better in holding onto resolution as ISO increases, but it is not a huge difference, and probably would not be something one would notice too much either:
K-x


K-5


(From photoreview.com.au 's camera reviews)

[john5100]

RAWR, the KX holds it's own pretty well based on that graph. The K5 has many other great things going for it but the KX is no slouch. I still use my K200d up to 1600 with no problems too.

[rawr]

Just to make my biases clear, I recently bought a K-5, not because I am unhappy with the K-x, but because the value equation was compelling. (It only cost me $300 more to buy a K-5 body new than it did for me to buy my K-x new in 2009).

I'll keep the K-x, but the K200D may be looking for a new owner after Xmas.

Haven't really done any side-by-side testing of high-ISO or anything else yet, and probably won't bother doing that in detail because it is a bit boring and both are very good. After a while I'll draw some conclusions based on actual use though.

[aleonx3]

Just to make my biases clear, I recently bought a K-5, not because I am unhappy with the K-x, but because the value equation was compelling. (It only cost me $300 more to buy a K-5 body new than it did for me to buy my K-x new in 2009).

I'll keep the K-x, but the K200D may be looking for a new owner after Xmas.

Haven't really done any side-by-side testing of high-ISO or anything else yet, and probably won't bother doing that in detail because it is a bit boring and both are very good. After a while I'll draw some conclusions based on actual use though.

I can draw similar analogy to my situation; bought the k-7 in Jun/2010 (at lowest price point for new), just bought the k-5 in Dec/2011. Tax and shipping included in both cameras, the difference is merely less than $90 - thanks to no shipping and no PST plus no currency-exchange on k-5. To me, the difference makes the k-5 a super bargain for me. So far, iso6400 noise on k-5 is like iso800-1200 on k-7, so I am happy about that.

[olivemike]

Thank you everyone for such great thoughts - I'm flattered some Pentaxians got in on the discussion and I didn't imagine I would get this response. The reason for my post is really related to my recent desire to take good indoor basketball photos of my kids at an elementary school gym. With full disclosure, I know I have work to do regarding faster long lenses as I have a M*300mm/f4 but it's hard to focus quickly. The other option is a 55-300 DAL kit lens that goes up to 5.8 and blows any chance at low ISO. As i look at the DxOMArk scores for Sports (low light ISO), the K-x rates at an ISO of 811, the K-5 at 1162, and the gem 5DMarkII at a whopping 1815. So my next question is about Full Frame vs. MP. Does the 5DMarkii have a better score because it's 21MP or because its full frame? In the same context, is the K-5 better because of 16MP or a slightly larger frame? Thanks and I look forward to your expertise on this as well.

[rawr]

Does the 5DMarkii have a better score because it's 21MP or because its full frame?

If you browse the DxOMark site, you will find lots of good explanations about what the low light scores mean and how they are derived.

But the difference is mainly due to the larger sensor size of the 5D2 (full-frame 24x36) and hence larger pixels with a greater surface area available to gather light.

In the same context, is the K-5 better because of 16MP or a slightly larger frame?

Both the K-5 and the K-x have sensors made by Sony, and both sensors are the same size (APS-C format). The K-5 low-light score is better than the K-x on dxomark because the K-5 sensor is a newer design than that of the K-x, with some special enhancements that boost it's performance.

While the 5D2 may perform better in low-light than the K-5 or K-x, for sports photography one advantage of K-5/K-x sensor format cameras is their 1.5 crop factor, which means what would be a mere 300mm lens on full-frame becomes effectively a 450mm lens when mounted on APS-C.

You might find the following of interest if you want to explore the issue of sensor sizes and how they impact digital photography in more detail:

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

[jolepp]

I came to Pentax cameras via a K-x which convinced me of the merits of the brand to the point of getting a K-5 down the line, I briefly had both of them. The 0.02€ bit: from (pixel peepy) looking of the images I came to the conclusion that the K-5 would have an edge worth 1/2 - 2/3 stops or so. (That is, images with the K-x at ISO 1600 looked slightly better to me than those with the K-5 at 3200, then again the latter was still rather nice, while the K-x at 3200 was getting borderline "too noisy" for me. In other words, a personal impression, not hard science ).

[taiweitai]

interesting ! I am really thinking now to upgrade my k-x to k-5 while somebody offered me a good price for my k-x, i m Stuck !!!