K20D--why 14 MP??

**rparmar** · 03-04-2008, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by WMBP

What I really wish is that raw resolution could be adjusted up and down the way jpeg res can.

That would be way cool -- keep all the benefits of RAW for processing but not the file size, unless we need it.

**barondla** · 03-04-2008, 03:56 PM

I love the K10D. The day I bought it wished it was higher res. The day I bought the K20D (yesterday) Wished it was higher res. Want the whole deal. Want the convenience of digital and the resolution of film. The K10D doesn't match my leica rangefinder or Olympus OM4t film systems for resolution (shooting Velvia or K64). Sorry. Don't think the K20D will either. Have to shoot a while to decide that. I would consider the Pentax 645D If it was available and I could afford it (used to Pentax 6x7).
Like big prints - have 20x30s hanging on walls. Even made a 20x30 off the DS. The K20D is awesome! Gain resolution and better high iso. Win-win. Glad Pentax did 14.6. Gives them a little breathing room to work on next cameras. Should be 18+mp. They seem to like going up by 4mp each time. This camera will be close to 35mm film quality. Everyone worries about lenses but the good ones were a match for film so they should be able to pull it off for similar digital resolution. Back to playing with the new camera.
thanks
barondla

flyer · 03-04-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by WMBP

Christine,

Yes, this benefit of higher res originals is obvious, but it doesn't quite answer my question.

I mean, how many people want to make huge prints? I've never made a super-large print. But with huge raw files you are stuck with all that info all the time, and it costs money to store it even when you don't need it.

And I would note that Ben Kanarek has shown some really huge enlargements of his photos that looked great--and that was a year ago, photos taken with a K10D.

What I really wish is that raw resolution could be adjusted up and down the way jpeg res can.

Will

Actually, Ben Kanarek's oversize prints are made to be seen from a distance. If you get too close, you are likely to see large "screen like" dots in the image. But if you want to make a 2 pages spread in a magazine or a poster for printing purpose, the 14.6 meg. is going to be quite handy.

tpeace · 03-04-2008, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

see, now THATS a good argument,

i would be intersted to know how many people in this thread share the same time/work/location constraits that would facilitate the need for either smaller files or powerful portable technology, which really is the lap-tops industries fault for not keeping up...

Gooshin,

I shoot (American) football so I'll sign-up for the K20's higher resolution for the cross-field shots (and I'm hoping it really delivers better performance in bad stadium lighting for night games) but I share Kameraten's concern about the impact of larger files on post-shoot processing.

Since I'm freelance, I'm always in a race to get my images in front of the editor's before they've selected from some other source. For newspapers, my experience is that getting there with a decent image beats getting there slower with a great image. (Mags are a different story of course).

Already, with the K10, I generally start in jpeg mode and switch to RAW only when lighting conditions demand it. Love the RAW button for this!

As for laptops, I try to plug in to not deal with battery life and the PC's energy conservation mode. Not always possible but I usually can find one.

Regards,
Tom Peace

PDL · 03-04-2008, 07:10 PM

To get back to the original question of why 14.6 - here is my take.

Pentax engineers came up with a mirolens (bigger) and circuit design that allowed the photo sites to be physically closer than Sony sensors being used in the K10D. Using these new(er) techniques and shooting for acceptable chip production rates - that is how they came up with 14.6 MP on an APS-C die. Included in this new design are the benefits of better ISO response, resolution and all the other things that are so intriguing about the K20D. (No I will not buy one any time soon - the money is just not there and the desire is not there either - only 12 images so far this year).

Now - just think - keeping the same pixel density and developing a 24x35 (135 format) (full frame is an oxymoron - I use all the pixels on my cameras, so I shoot full frame) sensor - what would be the advantage? Way too many to talk about here and way to costly for my budget. Oh and just think about a 645 format using the same sensor pixel density - oh Momma.

Anyway, I think that the reason that 14.6 MP came out is that was what the engineers came up with as acceptable for the APS-C form factor given their new photo site design.

Boring huh?

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

WMBP · 03-04-2008, 07:15 PM

I would like to thank everybody who responded in this thread. It turned out to be more interesting--and more illuminating--than I expected.

Oh, and if anybody here would like to consider paying top dollar for a lovingly used K10D body that's in terrific shape, contact me in a few days, back channel. ;-)

Will

FastPhotography · 03-07-2008, 01:43 PM

I think too that 14mp was not the smartest move. I think that 12mp would have been better. But the major thing with the k20d is that it's the IQ king. And the 14mp over 12mp just further proves that (partially as a marketing thing).
I may be completely wrong, but this is what I can gather.

benjikan · 03-07-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by FastPhotography

I think too that 14mp was not the smartest move. I think that 12mp would have been better. But the major thing with the k20d is that it's the IQ king. And the 14mp over 12mp just further proves that (partially as a marketing thing).
I may be completely wrong, but this is what I can gather.

For my use, the more the merrier. I need headroom. When shooting beauty 10 mega pixels is OK. But when retouching a face on a full silhouette, you want to be able to bring up the eyes, mouth etc. and have substance to work on. The K20D gives me more material to play with. What I love is the mobility of the DSLR format. I really hate using the Blad's they tie me down and that affects my imagery.

If the next generation can support 19, 20, 21 or what ever megapixels and renders well at 100 iso, I will go for it.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Ben

Confused · 03-07-2008, 04:14 PM

Hi Ben

When you state:

Quote:

I really hate using the Blad's they tie me down and that affects my imagery.

I assume you mean being 'tethered' to a laptop set-up or have I misunderstood what you were trying to say ?

Best regards
Richard

benjikan · 03-07-2008, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Confused

Hi Ben

When you state:

I assume you mean being 'tethered' to a laptop set-up or have I misunderstood what you were trying to say ?

Best regards
Richard

I hate tri-pods.....

Confused · 03-07-2008, 07:17 PM

Hi again Ben

Although shooting fashion photography is not something I've ever attempted, I can appreciate your point that being 'tied' to a tripod would tend to inhibit a photographer's natural instinctive movements and inevitably affect one's creative flow to an appreciable extent. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that any movement resulting from hand-holding a MF digital SLR is likely to become only too obvious at the PP stage ?

Best regards
Richard

davemdsn · 03-07-2008, 07:28 PM

I still don't see why 12 MP would be a better move. Like it or not there is a MP race, and for the very first time Pentax is winning in their class. Noise is lower than competitors' 12 MP so why complain? We have high res and low noise and a camera that competes with cameras 2, 3, and even 4 times it's price. Why did they do it? Because they could!

24X36NOW · 03-08-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by barondla

I love the K10D. The day I bought it wished it was higher res. The day I bought the K20D (yesterday) Wished it was higher res. Want the whole deal. Want the convenience of digital and the resolution of film. The K10D doesn't match my leica rangefinder or Olympus OM4t film systems for resolution (shooting Velvia or K64). Sorry. Don't think the K20D will either. Have to shoot a while to decide that. I would consider the Pentax 645D If it was available and I could afford it (used to Pentax 6x7).
Like big prints - have 20x30s hanging on walls. Even made a 20x30 off the DS. The K20D is awesome! Gain resolution and better high iso. Win-win. Glad Pentax did 14.6. Gives them a little breathing room to work on next cameras. Should be 18+mp. They seem to like going up by 4mp each time. This camera will be close to 35mm film quality. Everyone worries about lenses but the good ones were a match for film so they should be able to pull it off for similar digital resolution. Back to playing with the new camera.
thanks
barondla

I want the whole deal too. I'd like a 24 x 36 dSLR with "make me forget about film" resolution, which shouldn't be that far off. As for computing power to deal with the file sizes, that just keeps getting cheaper, so I'm not too concerned.

egordon99 · 03-08-2008, 08:04 PM

The Canon 40D has sRAW, which is more or less a 2MP (?) RAW file. It is 1944x1296 pixels, whereas the regular RAW files are 3888x2592 (~10MP). The sRAW files are around 6MB and regular RAW comes in around 12MB.

When I'm testing out new stuff, I use sRAW but will continue to use "full" RAW for important shoots because you'll never know when you get that ONE shot that someone wants to blow up beyond 8x12. I figure the sRAW would be fine for 4x6 or 5x7.
-Evan

Originally posted by WMBP

What I really wish is that raw resolution could be adjusted up and down the way jpeg res can.

Will

christinelandon · 03-09-2008, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by flyer

Actually, Ben Kanarek's oversize prints are made to be seen from a distance. If you get too close, you are likely to see large "screen like" dots in the image. But if you want to make a 2 pages spread in a magazine or a poster for printing purpose, the 14.6 meg. is going to be quite handy.

Thanks, Flyer; good point. When I get invited to hang a show in some of the local gallery/coffeehouses I frequent (hey, this is Seattle...it happens!), I'm asked to print large, and I've seen for myself that viewers (I'm guilty of it, too) will lean right into a framed print to scan its details. The last thing the gallery owner and I want is for a potential customer to back away saying, "uggh, I can see the pixels!" or some such complaint about the apparent resolution.

As I said above, Genuine Fractals helps in a case like this, but high native resolution is always a good starting point. If and when there's demand for my stuff printed in sizes over 16X20, I'll probably start wishing for more resolution than my K10D offers...and that the 645D were in my bag!

03-04-2008, 04:28 PM	#49
tpeace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	big files/post shoot processing Originally posted by Gooshin see, now THATS a good argument, i would be intersted to know how many people in this thread share the same time/work/location constraits that would facilitate the need for either smaller files or powerful portable technology, which really is the lap-tops industries fault for not keeping up... Gooshin, I shoot (American) football so I'll sign-up for the K20's higher resolution for the cross-field shots (and I'm hoping it really delivers better performance in bad stadium lighting for night games) but I share Kameraten's concern about the impact of larger files on post-shoot processing. Since I'm freelance, I'm always in a race to get my images in front of the editor's before they've selected from some other source. For newspapers, my experience is that getting there with a decent image beats getting there slower with a great image. (Mags are a different story of course). Already, with the K10, I generally start in jpeg mode and switch to RAW only when lighting conditions demand it. Love the RAW button for this! As for laptops, I try to plug in to not deal with battery life and the PC's energy conservation mode. Not always possible but I usually can find one. Regards, Tom Peace

03-04-2008, 07:15 PM	#51
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482 Original Poster	THANKS y'all I would like to thank everybody who responded in this thread. It turned out to be more interesting--and more illuminating--than I expected. Oh, and if anybody here would like to consider paying top dollar for a lovingly used K10D body that's in terrific shape, contact me in a few days, back channel. ;-) Will

03-07-2008, 02:51 PM	#53
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by FastPhotography I think too that 14mp was not the smartest move. I think that 12mp would have been better. But the major thing with the k20d is that it's the IQ king. And the 14mp over 12mp just further proves that (partially as a marketing thing). I may be completely wrong, but this is what I can gather. For my use, the more the merrier. I need headroom. When shooting beauty 10 mega pixels is OK. But when retouching a face on a full silhouette, you want to be able to bring up the eyes, mouth etc. and have substance to work on. The K20D gives me more material to play with. What I love is the mobility of the DSLR format. I really hate using the Blad's they tie me down and that affects my imagery. If the next generation can support 19, 20, 21 or what ever megapixels and renders well at 100 iso, I will go for it. Just my 2 cents worth. Ben Last edited by benjikan; 03-07-2008 at 06:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, Battery Grip, NEW K20D battery, cable remote (Worldwide)	Albert Siegel	Sold Items	6	09-23-2010 08:02 AM
In Canada: Summer Rebates for K20d or K20d plus lens	Pentaxtic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	07-17-2009 11:34 AM
Magic Lantern Guides: Pentax K20D and MasterWorks: Jumpstart Guide for the K20D.	Reportage	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	02-12-2009 10:24 PM

03-04-2008, 03:46 PM	#46
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by WMBP What I really wish is that raw resolution could be adjusted up and down the way jpeg res can. That would be way cool -- keep all the benefits of RAW for processing but not the file size, unless we need it.

03-04-2008, 03:56 PM	#47
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	I love the K10D. The day I bought it wished it was higher res. The day I bought the K20D (yesterday) Wished it was higher res. Want the whole deal. Want the convenience of digital and the resolution of film. The K10D doesn't match my leica rangefinder or Olympus OM4t film systems for resolution (shooting Velvia or K64). Sorry. Don't think the K20D will either. Have to shoot a while to decide that. I would consider the Pentax 645D If it was available and I could afford it (used to Pentax 6x7). Like big prints - have 20x30s hanging on walls. Even made a 20x30 off the DS. The K20D is awesome! Gain resolution and better high iso. Win-win. Glad Pentax did 14.6. Gives them a little breathing room to work on next cameras. Should be 18+mp. They seem to like going up by 4mp each time. This camera will be close to 35mm film quality. Everyone worries about lenses but the good ones were a match for film so they should be able to pull it off for similar digital resolution. Back to playing with the new camera. thanks barondla

03-04-2008, 03:59 PM	#48
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by WMBP Christine, Yes, this benefit of higher res originals is obvious, but it doesn't quite answer my question. I mean, how many people want to make huge prints? I've never made a super-large print. But with huge raw files you are stuck with all that info all the time, and it costs money to store it even when you don't need it. And I would note that Ben Kanarek has shown some really huge enlargements of his photos that looked great--and that was a year ago, photos taken with a K10D. What I really wish is that raw resolution could be adjusted up and down the way jpeg res can. Will Actually, Ben Kanarek's oversize prints are made to be seen from a distance. If you get too close, you are likely to see large "screen like" dots in the image. But if you want to make a 2 pages spread in a magazine or a poster for printing purpose, the 14.6 meg. is going to be quite handy.

03-04-2008, 07:10 PM	#50
PDL Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: PNW USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,127	To get back to the original question of why 14.6 - here is my take. Pentax engineers came up with a mirolens (bigger) and circuit design that allowed the photo sites to be physically closer than Sony sensors being used in the K10D. Using these new(er) techniques and shooting for acceptable chip production rates - that is how they came up with 14.6 MP on an APS-C die. Included in this new design are the benefits of better ISO response, resolution and all the other things that are so intriguing about the K20D. (No I will not buy one any time soon - the money is just not there and the desire is not there either - only 12 images so far this year). Now - just think - keeping the same pixel density and developing a 24x35 (135 format) (full frame is an oxymoron - I use all the pixels on my cameras, so I shoot full frame) sensor - what would be the advantage? Way too many to talk about here and way to costly for my budget. Oh and just think about a 645 format using the same sensor pixel density - oh Momma. Anyway, I think that the reason that 14.6 MP came out is that was what the engineers came up with as acceptable for the APS-C form factor given their new photo site design. Boring huh? The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

03-07-2008, 01:43 PM	#52
FastPhotography Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Kansas, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 123	I think too that 14mp was not the smartest move. I think that 12mp would have been better. But the major thing with the k20d is that it's the IQ king. And the 14mp over 12mp just further proves that (partially as a marketing thing). I may be completely wrong, but this is what I can gather.

03-07-2008, 04:14 PM	#54
Confused Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London Posts: 1,067	Hi Ben When you state: Quote: I really hate using the Blad's they tie me down and that affects my imagery. I assume you mean being 'tethered' to a laptop set-up or have I misunderstood what you were trying to say ? Best regards Richard

03-07-2008, 06:31 PM	#55
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by Confused Hi Ben When you state: I assume you mean being 'tethered' to a laptop set-up or have I misunderstood what you were trying to say ? Best regards Richard I hate tri-pods.....

03-07-2008, 07:17 PM	#56
Confused Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London Posts: 1,067	Hi again Ben Although shooting fashion photography is not something I've ever attempted, I can appreciate your point that being 'tied' to a tripod would tend to inhibit a photographer's natural instinctive movements and inevitably affect one's creative flow to an appreciable extent. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that any movement resulting from hand-holding a MF digital SLR is likely to become only too obvious at the PP stage ? Best regards Richard

03-07-2008, 07:28 PM	#57
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	I still don't see why 12 MP would be a better move. Like it or not there is a MP race, and for the very first time Pentax is winning in their class. Noise is lower than competitors' 12 MP so why complain? We have high res and low noise and a camera that competes with cameras 2, 3, and even 4 times it's price. Why did they do it? Because they could!

03-08-2008, 04:06 PM	#58
24X36NOW Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: CT, USA Posts: 498	Originally posted by barondla I love the K10D. The day I bought it wished it was higher res. The day I bought the K20D (yesterday) Wished it was higher res. Want the whole deal. Want the convenience of digital and the resolution of film. The K10D doesn't match my leica rangefinder or Olympus OM4t film systems for resolution (shooting Velvia or K64). Sorry. Don't think the K20D will either. Have to shoot a while to decide that. I would consider the Pentax 645D If it was available and I could afford it (used to Pentax 6x7). Like big prints - have 20x30s hanging on walls. Even made a 20x30 off the DS. The K20D is awesome! Gain resolution and better high iso. Win-win. Glad Pentax did 14.6. Gives them a little breathing room to work on next cameras. Should be 18+mp. They seem to like going up by 4mp each time. This camera will be close to 35mm film quality. Everyone worries about lenses but the good ones were a match for film so they should be able to pull it off for similar digital resolution. Back to playing with the new camera. thanks barondla I want the whole deal too. I'd like a 24 x 36 dSLR with "make me forget about film" resolution, which shouldn't be that far off. As for computing power to deal with the file sizes, that just keeps getting cheaper, so I'm not too concerned.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2008, 08:04 PM	#59
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	The Canon 40D has sRAW, which is more or less a 2MP (?) RAW file. It is 1944x1296 pixels, whereas the regular RAW files are 3888x2592 (~10MP). The sRAW files are around 6MB and regular RAW comes in around 12MB. When I'm testing out new stuff, I use sRAW but will continue to use "full" RAW for important shoots because you'll never know when you get that ONE shot that someone wants to blow up beyond 8x12. I figure the sRAW would be fine for 4x6 or 5x7. -Evan Originally posted by WMBP What I really wish is that raw resolution could be adjusted up and down the way jpeg res can. Will

03-09-2008, 03:55 AM	#60
christinelandon Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Seattle, Washington, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 812	Originally posted by flyer Actually, Ben Kanarek's oversize prints are made to be seen from a distance. If you get too close, you are likely to see large "screen like" dots in the image. But if you want to make a 2 pages spread in a magazine or a poster for printing purpose, the 14.6 meg. is going to be quite handy. Thanks, Flyer; good point. When I get invited to hang a show in some of the local gallery/coffeehouses I frequent (hey, this is Seattle...it happens!), I'm asked to print large, and I've seen for myself that viewers (I'm guilty of it, too) will lean right into a framed print to scan its details. The last thing the gallery owner and I want is for a potential customer to back away saying, "uggh, I can see the pixels!" or some such complaint about the apparent resolution. As I said above, Genuine Fractals helps in a case like this, but high native resolution is always a good starting point. If and when there's demand for my stuff printed in sizes over 16X20, I'll probably start wishing for more resolution than my K10D offers...and that the 645D were in my bag!