36 vs 22Mp FF (just for fun)

Gimbal · 03-03-2012, 10:00 AM

So Nikon has a new 36Mp FF and Canon has a slightly faster 22Mp Camera.
If we could get a Pentax FF in either a slower 36Mp version or a faster 22Mp version. What would you choose?

I would go for the 36Mp model.

snappychappy · 03-03-2012, 10:05 AM

NO, I would go for the 22mp, surely better at higher ISO's

Parallax · 03-03-2012, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by snappychappy

NO, I would go for the 22mp, surely better at higher ISO's

36 Mp FF is roughly the same pixel size/density as the K5. It seems to do okay at high ISO.

Barbarosa · 03-03-2012, 10:53 AM

36, please weak AA or no AA filter

RonHendriks1966 · 03-03-2012, 11:01 AM

Well personally I would like to add the 16 mp from D4 and 18 mp from 1Dx. I would like to have one of those.

**Ex Finn.** · 03-03-2012, 11:01 AM

22mp with 7fps. 16mp with 8 fps. would be fine also.

**7samurai** · 03-03-2012, 11:03 AM

Assuming the IQ will be simular.
That is a really hard question for me. I'm really bad at zooming with my legs, so the 36 MP would help. The 22 MP would give me the speed I need once in a blue moon. Hmmm.
I guess I would prefer the 36 MP. I just don't shoot that many bursts.

**7samurai** · 03-03-2012, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Well personally I would like to add the 16 mp from D4 and 18 mp from 1Dx. I would like to have one of those.

I wouldn't mind the 16 MP either. You would get simular performance if you put that in the K-5. Add the PRIME and you have a speed demon.
I would assume the low-light focusing and high-iso would be insane.

**Ex Finn.** · 03-03-2012, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by 7samurai

I would assume the low-light focusing and high-iso would be insane.

I could see the benefit of "clean" ISO 12800 with night sports.

westmill · 03-03-2012, 03:35 PM

Like i need bigger files lol..... Pleeeeeeeez 16 million pixel !!!!!!!!
I would rather see 16 million improved even further. The only benafit of more is bigger files.
If I start getting clients asking for pics the size of billboards I might consider lol.

Andrew Faires · 03-03-2012, 04:03 PM

22 to 24 mp on the FF side is more than enough for me. For landscape work, I don't really care if it goes up to Even ISO 1600. I'd rather see it drop to ISO 25.

Tonto · 03-03-2012, 04:59 PM

24mp - no need for too many FPS maybe the same as K5 but better AF-C. Just keep it cheap(er)!

If I am selling Murals I can afford a 645D!

RonHendriks1966 · 03-03-2012, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Tonto

24mp - no need for too many FPS maybe the same as K5 but better AF-C. Just keep it cheap(er)!

Well two problems to this. The more fps the more hard working it is for the shutter and thus it will get more expensive! (wich why my APS-H would be cheaper)
The more megapixels you want the more readout lines you need to keep up fps at hi-rates and thus the more expensive the sensormodule will get! (wich why my APS-H would be cheaper)

So I'm still in favor for a hi-iso performance hi fps APS-H sensor with 12-16 megapixel. :ugh:

jremick · 03-03-2012, 07:35 PM

Between the 36 mp and 22 mp I'd go with the 22 mp hands down. I don't want larger files and don't need greater than 22 mp (or 16-18 mp for that matter). However, the theoretical light sensitivity improvements of the new 22 mp sensor is something I'd really like, among other things.

**Ex Finn.** · 03-03-2012, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

So I'm still in favor for a hi-iso performance hi fps APS-H sensor with 12-16 megapixel.

Sir, you are playing against the rest of us with your APS-H pipe dream. A needless compromise to FF.
My 2 c worth.

03-03-2012, 10:00 AM	#1
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	36 vs 22Mp FF (just for fun) So Nikon has a new 36Mp FF and Canon has a slightly faster 22Mp Camera. If we could get a Pentax FF in either a slower 36Mp version or a faster 22Mp version. What would you choose? I would go for the 36Mp model.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Machinery Are We Having Fun Yet?	Bob Harris	Post Your Photos!	4	05-08-2011 06:33 PM
Landscape Just for fun B+W	Photopat	Post Your Photos!	2	04-11-2011 08:00 AM
Misc Just for fun	slowpez	Post Your Photos!	3	10-29-2010 03:24 PM
People Serious Fun	overkillzone	Photo Critique	7	05-05-2010 12:18 PM
Ringlight final test... fun fun fun!	codiac2600	Post Your Photos!	16	02-04-2008 12:33 AM

03-03-2012, 10:05 AM	#2
snappychappy Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 1,636	NO, I would go for the 22mp, surely better at higher ISO's

03-03-2012, 10:34 AM	#3
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by snappychappy NO, I would go for the 22mp, surely better at higher ISO's 36 Mp FF is roughly the same pixel size/density as the K5. It seems to do okay at high ISO.

03-03-2012, 10:53 AM	#4
Barbarosa Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Sanski Most Posts: 147	36, please weak AA or no AA filter

03-03-2012, 11:01 AM	#5
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Well personally I would like to add the 16 mp from D4 and 18 mp from 1Dx. I would like to have one of those.

03-03-2012, 11:01 AM	#6
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	22mp with 7fps. 16mp with 8 fps. would be fine also.

03-03-2012, 11:03 AM	#7
7samurai Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 474	Assuming the IQ will be simular. That is a really hard question for me. I'm really bad at zooming with my legs, so the 36 MP would help. The 22 MP would give me the speed I need once in a blue moon. Hmmm. I guess I would prefer the 36 MP. I just don't shoot that many bursts.

03-03-2012, 11:06 AM	#8
7samurai Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 474	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Well personally I would like to add the 16 mp from D4 and 18 mp from 1Dx. I would like to have one of those. I wouldn't mind the 16 MP either. You would get simular performance if you put that in the K-5. Add the PRIME and you have a speed demon. I would assume the low-light focusing and high-iso would be insane.

03-03-2012, 01:57 PM	#9
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by 7samurai I would assume the low-light focusing and high-iso would be insane. I could see the benefit of "clean" ISO 12800 with night sports.

03-03-2012, 03:35 PM	#10
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Like i need bigger files lol..... Pleeeeeeeez 16 million pixel !!!!!!!! I would rather see 16 million improved even further. The only benafit of more is bigger files. If I start getting clients asking for pics the size of billboards I might consider lol.

03-03-2012, 04:03 PM	#11
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	22 to 24 mp on the FF side is more than enough for me. For landscape work, I don't really care if it goes up to Even ISO 1600. I'd rather see it drop to ISO 25.

03-03-2012, 04:59 PM	#12
Tonto Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wellington Posts: 969	24mp - no need for too many FPS maybe the same as K5 but better AF-C. Just keep it cheap(er)! If I am selling Murals I can afford a 645D!

03-03-2012, 05:23 PM	#13
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Tonto 24mp - no need for too many FPS maybe the same as K5 but better AF-C. Just keep it cheap(er)! Well two problems to this. The more fps the more hard working it is for the shutter and thus it will get more expensive! (wich why my APS-H would be cheaper) The more megapixels you want the more readout lines you need to keep up fps at hi-rates and thus the more expensive the sensormodule will get! (wich why my APS-H would be cheaper) So I'm still in favor for a hi-iso performance hi fps APS-H sensor with 12-16 megapixel. :ugh:

03-03-2012, 07:35 PM	#14
jremick Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 141	Between the 36 mp and 22 mp I'd go with the 22 mp hands down. I don't want larger files and don't need greater than 22 mp (or 16-18 mp for that matter). However, the theoretical light sensitivity improvements of the new 22 mp sensor is something I'd really like, among other things.

03-03-2012, 07:45 PM	#15
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 So I'm still in favor for a hi-iso performance hi fps APS-H sensor with 12-16 megapixel. Sir, you are playing against the rest of us with your APS-H pipe dream. A needless compromise to FF. My 2 c worth.