[normhead]

If you convert each 2x2 Bayer cell into 1 RGB pixel, then you not only reduce linear resolution by half, you create edges with ugly color fringes too. The Bayer sensor simply isn't meant to be regarded this way. The separate reconstruction of a full resolution luminance signal and a separate chrominance signal is at the heart of the Bayer filter invention. There is nothing exaggerated.

Ah but assuming that lens resolution and sensor resolution were now matched in their current configurations, what about a pixel half the width so therefore 1/4 the size, that could squeeze an Red, a BLue , a Green plus a Luminance pixel into the space now taken by one pixel? Essentially having 4 smaller pixels with different functions in place of 1 pixel?

[vonBaloney]

If extra detail is really needed - then probably instead look at a higher resolution sensor -
eg: not that I am saying for a moment that these are anywhere near the K-5IIs -
but the Nikon D3200 has a 24Mp sensor and that is a budget dSLR selling for less than $490 with kit lens;
the Sony SLT A65 also 24Mp is less than $690 -
I would venture to say both will out resolve the K-5IIs without the possible aliasing and moire problems
- hope that puts it somewhat in context.

That's a comparison I'd like to see. But with 24MP from an APS-C sensor, aren't you then limited by diffraction?

[normhead]

Unfortunately I read on one forum that the 24 Mp APS-c sensors don't compare at all favourably to the 16 MP D7000, and they blamed that on the sensor at 16 MP already out-resolving the lenses. But I'd be happy to hear it if someone says different.

[UnknownVT]

Unfortunately I read on one forum that the 24 Mp APS-c sensors don't compare at all favourably to the 16 MP D7000, and they blamed that on the sensor at 16 MP already out-resolving the lenses. But I'd be happy to hear it if someone says different.

Interesting -
comparing the lowly <$500 Nikon D3200 24Mp,
with the class leading Nikon D7000 16Mp, and Pentax K-5 16Mp -
according to Imaging-Resource.com reviews (who are at least somewhat accredited) -
- with links to the respective reference pages:

Nikon D3200 24Mp
Nikon D3200 Camera Exposure - Review
Resolution
Very high resolution, 2,400 to 2,500 lines of strong detail from JPEGs, slightly more from raw files.

Nikon D7000 16Mp
Nikon D7000 Review by IR
Resolution
Very high resolution, ~1,950 to 2,000 lines of strong detail from JPEGs, slightly higher from converted RAW files.

Pentax K-5 16Mp
Pentax K-5 Camera Imaging - Full Review
Resolution
Very high resolution, ~1,900 lines of strong detail from JPEGs, about 2,100 lines from converted RAW files.

EDIT to ADD -
from another source dpReview.com, again with links to the reference pages -

Nikon D3200 24Mp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/13
the out-of-camera JPEGs, while clean of artifacts, are a little soft and and only resolve accurately up to approximately 3000 lp/ph which is less than we would expect from a camera with a 24MP sensor.
Converting your raw files and applying a customized unsharp mask (170%, 0.4 radius in our case) will get you a significant amount of additional detail. In our examples, here, there is some detail (albeit not 'true' almost up to the Nyquist limit of 4000lp/ph, which is the theoretical limit of the D3200's sensor resolution.

Sony SLT-A65 24Mp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/13
neither the A65's JPEG nor raw output contains much meaningful detail beyond 3600 lp/ph.

Nikon D7000 16Mp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/13
JPEG files, the D7000 cannot accurately describe the 9 lines on our test chart much beyond 2600LPH (roughly), the RAW file still shows all nine lines distinctly at 2600LPH, and they only begin to merge at around 2800LPH.

Pentax K-5 16Mp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/13
The K-5's default JPEG sharpening is conservative, but all nine lines of our test chart can be discerned up to around 2600LPH both horizontally and vertically. A lot more detail is apparent from our RAW samples, however, and vertical and horizontal detail is accurately described up to around 2800LPH,

---

Last edited by UnknownVT; 10-18-2012 at 01:22 PM.

[normhead]

That's a somewhat restricted summary of their findings...

For Pentax. K-5

Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,400 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and to about 2,500 lines in the vertical direction. Extinction of the pattern didn't occur until around 3,400 lines in both directions. We weren't able to do much better in terms of absolute resolution with raw files processed through Adobe Camera Raw, perhaps just slightly more in the horizontal direction (about 2,500 lines), though color moire and chromatic aberration was more evident.The ACR processed RAW images were also crisper (thanks to strong/tight unsharp masking in Photoshop), and didn't show as many jagged edges on fine diagonal lines as the camera JPEGs did, though color moire was a bit higher

For the 3200

Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,400 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and to about 2,500 lines in the vertical direction. Extinction of the pattern didn't occur until around 3,400 lines in both directions. We weren't able to do much better in terms of absolute resolution with raw files processed through Adobe Camera Raw, perhaps just slightly more in the horizontal direction (about 2,500 lines), though color moire and chromatic aberration was more evident.

Pattern extinction didn't occur in the K-5 until 3200 lines, 3400 lines for the D3200 so a slight increase... a 6% increase compared to a 33% increase in the size of the sensor MP. And for that you get more color moire and chromatic aberration. I'm not sure if you've shown what I said was correct or not, but it does lead one to suspect that when they test the K5 IIs it will out resolve the D3200 even with the smaller sensor MP. In any case in terms of IQ, the larger MP sensor would be trading, a bit of a gain in line resolution for a bit of loss in chromatic aberation and moire. I think this may be more a case that shows the values and perils of oversampling with current sensor as opposed to a proof that a 24 MP can out resolve a 16 MP sensor. 6% is so small as to be argued moot.

By the way I have held a D3200 and it is a very nice camera,





The IQ was excellent, the jpg processing was impressive.. although as the article pointed out, I couldn't demonstrate that shooting in raw improved her images, and with the money she saved on the camera body...she bought the 18-200 VR lens. Are you listening Pentax... 18-200, not an 18-270 piece of junk. She explained she wanted this camera because she has small hands and most cameras feel too big in her hands. And she wanted the 18-200 so she wouldn't have to change lenses.

There was nothing wrong with her logic that I could see.

[UnknownVT]

That's a somewhat restricted summary of their findings..

I am more than willing to accept your findings -
That however does not negate the measurements done by both Imaging-Resource.com or dpReview.com
both of which clearly measured the resolution of the lowly 24Mp Nikon D3200 to be greater than either of the class leading 16Mp Nikon D7000 or Pentax K-5.

Perhaps a visual side-by-side comparison from actual controlled photos may help?
source: Nikon D3200 Review: Digital Photography Review

[UnknownVT]

That's a somewhat restricted summary of their findings...

For Pentax. K-5

Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,400 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and to about 2,500 lines in the vertical direction. Extinction of the pattern didn't occur until around 3,400 lines in both directions. We weren't able to do much better in terms of absolute resolution with raw files processed through Adobe Camera Raw, perhaps just slightly more in the horizontal direction (about 2,500 lines), though color moire and chromatic aberration was more evident.The ACR processed RAW images were also crisper (thanks to strong/tight unsharp masking in Photoshop), and didn't show as many jagged edges on fine diagonal lines as the camera JPEGs did, though color moire was a bit higher

Hold on...
Where did you get your quote for the Pentax K-5 from please?
this is what I see - and it's quite a bit different from your quote.
from: Pentax K-5 Camera Imaging - Full Review

Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 1,900 lines per picture height in both the horizontal and vertical direction in JPEGs. (Some might argue for over 2,000 lines, but aliasing artifacts begin to appear earlier.) Complete extinction didn't occur until around 2,800 lines in both directions. We were able to extract more resolution (to about 2,100 lines) with RAW files processed through Adobe Camera RAW, with complete extinction extended to around 3,200 lines. The ACR processed RAW images were also crisper (thanks to strong/tight unsharp masking in Photoshop), and didn't show as many jagged edges on fine diagonal lines as the camera JPEGs did, though color moire was a bit higher. Use these numbers to compare with other cameras of similar resolution, or use them to see just what higher resolution can mean in terms of potential detail.

[normhead]

Oops correction needed, I'll alter the original. Oops again, the quote is from here...http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5IMAGING.HTM

Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 1,900 lines per picture height in both the horizontal and vertical direction in JPEGs. (Some might argue for over 2,000 lines, but aliasing artifacts begin to appear earlier.) Complete extinction didn't occur until around 2,800 lines in both directions. We were able to extract more resolution (to about 2,100 lines) with RAW files processed through Adobe Camera RAW, with complete extinction extended to around 3,200 lines. The ACR processed RAW images were also crisper (thanks to strong/tight unsharp masking in Photoshop), and didn't show as many jagged edges on fine diagonal lines as the camera JPEGs did, though color moire was a bit higher. Use these numbers to compare with other cameras of similar resolution, or use them to see just what higher resolution can mean in terms of potential detail.

I was right the first time.

[UnknownVT]

I was right the first time.

Oh, good - now the quote is what I saw.

However it is interesting using the visual example how well one can see the cross-hatching in the area just under the eyebrows with 24Mp (both budget cameras) vs the class leading 16Mp APS-C.

Then there are those feint vertical almost watermark-like lines that run across the face -
hardly visible in the 16Mps.

Is it likely the K-5IIs will resolve those?
which a sub $500 (24Mp) seem to be able to do with ease?

The point was:
it's easier to just go with a higher resolution sensor -
which are even available as budget entry-level dSLRs
rather than going to the risk a camera with its anti-aliasing filter removed.

[normhead]

That however does not negate the measurements done by both Imaging-Resource.com or dpReview.com
both of which clearly measured the resolution of the lowly 24Mp Nikon D3200 to be greater than either of the class leading 16Mp Nikon D7000 or Pentax K-5.

The D3200 is newer technology... time passes on.

On DxO the K-5 is still a point higher, before the release of the K5 IIs or KII. You could just as well compare the D3200 to the K-30... with the same disadvantage. D3200 $549 @ Henries...K-30- $799. ANd the K-30 saves you 8 MP everytime you snap a picture. Accept for the part where the D3200 shoots great in jpeg, so maybe you don't need raw.



Keep in mind that the D3200 can only use AF-s lenses. You don't have the backwards lens capability every Pentax and many Nikons have. That's the equavalent of making a Pentax with no screw drive cutting out all the Limited lenses, the Tamron 90 and many other fine lenses.

For my friend it was great. She wants to try and get along with one lens. For most of us in Pentax land, we can't even imagine it. Imagine, I can't use my 21 ltd. my FA 50 my Tamron 90, or my DA 35 2.4. You have to look at the whole package.


The D3200 is right where it should be for an APS-c camera. I'd still argue that the fact that it requires 33% it more hard drive space and is more demanding on your computer for PP, makes it less desirable. Why would you buy a 24 MP camera if you can get a 16 MP that does virtually the same thing with less MP? I guess cause it's cheaper.

But the D3200 also even comes in colours, so it's competitive on that level.

[UnknownVT]

The D3200 is newer technology... time passes on.

I think we're veering way off course here......
the Nikon D3200 was never meant to be a direct comparison -
only to show to get more details it is probably simpler just to go with a higher resolution sensor.

eg: not that I am saying for a moment that these are anywhere near the K-5IIs -
but the Nikon D3200 has a 24Mp sensor and that is a budget dSLR selling for less than $490 with kit lens;
the Sony SLT A65 also 24Mp is less than $690

The point was:
it's easier to just go with a higher resolution sensor -
which are even available as budget entry-level dSLRs
rather than going to the risk a camera with its anti-aliasing filter removed.

[normhead]

I think we're veering way off course here......
the Nikon D3200 was never meant to be a direct comparison -
only to show to get more details it is probably simpler just to go with a higher resolution sensor.

I hope they don't do that until I get a little more IQ to justify the increased image size that the D3200 demands. If I was going to argue increased IQ, I'd be talking D600. $700 more than the K-5 IIs and still 24 MP, but I bet the increase in resolution is on par with the increase in image size. Then you're getting something for your hard drive space. I can't see them getting a whole lot more out of APS-c and the D3200 and K-5 IIs show they're scraping the limits of the APS-c barrel, which ever way they go.

[Winder]

I think we're veering way off course here......
the Nikon D3200 was never meant to be a direct comparison -
only to show to get more details it is probably simpler just to go with a higher resolution sensor.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the D3200 sensor in the K-3 without the AA filter. It should exceed the K-5 IQ in just about every way.

[Class A]

Perhaps a visual side-by-side comparison from actual controlled photos may help

I'm not sure how comparable these images are.
Judging from the JPG file sizes, it appears that different sharpening levels have been used.

[UnknownVT]

I'm not sure how comparable these images are.
Judging from the JPG file sizes, it appears that different sharpening levels have been used.

just to give 2 examples from the comparison (the other two are basically the same):

Nikon D3200 Review: Digital Photography Review

Studio scene comparison (Raw)
This is our standard studio scene comparison shot taken from exactly the same tripod position. Lighting: daylight simulation, >98% CRI. Crops are 100%. Ambient temperature was approximately 22°C (~72°F).
For a (more) level playing field for comparison we also shot our studio scene in Raw mode with each camera and converted it using Adobe Camera Raw. Because Adobe Camera Raw applies different levels of sharpening to different cameras (this confirmed) we use the following workflow for these conversions:

• Load Raw file into Adobe Camera Raw (Auto mode disabled)
• Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
• Open file to Photoshop
• Apply a Unsharp mask: 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
• Save as a JPEG quality 11 for display and download.

Note: this page features our new interactive studio shot comparison widget. Click here to find out more.

Pentax K-5 In-depth Review: Digital Photography Review

Studio scene comparison (RAW)
For a (more) level playing field for comparison we also shot our studio scene in RAW mode with each camera and converted it using Adobe Camera RAW. Because Adobe Camera RAW applies different levels of sharpening to different cameras (this confirmed) we use the following workflow for these conversions:

• Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
• Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
• Open file to Photoshop
• Apply a Unsharp mask: 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
• Save as a JPEG quality 11 for display and download.

This is our standard studio scene comparison shot taken from exactly the same tripod position. Lighting: daylight simulation, >98% CRI. Crops are 100%. Ambient temperature was approximately 22°C (~72°F).
Note: this page features our new interactive studio shot comparison widget. Click here to find out more.

The point was even a cheapo not-so-great 24Mp budget entry level dSLR (Nikon D3200) shows a lot more detail than any of the class leading 16Mp such as the Nikon D7000 and even Pentax K-5 - regardless of sharpening level.