Originally posted by ElJamoquio Agreed. 24 MP isn't much better than 16MP if you're still on a smallish sensor... unless you're considering other improvements, like removing the AA filter.
I have to say, from what I've seen on-line, I am not impressed with the improvement going to a 24 FF either....the 24 MP APS-c is about 250 lw/ph better than a 16 mp APS-c, but the D600 is only about 250 lw/ph better than the APS-c. There's a complex interaction between sensor size, MPs and lens quality that is very hard to define. Not to mention the false colour etc. creeping into higher pixel densities.
Coupled with the fact that on a 20x30 inch print...2000 lw/ph gives you visible lines at .01 inches width. Getting to 3000 lw/ph gives you a line width of .0067 inches. The difference is .0033 inches. I know everyone says it makes a difference....but you have to ask, can you really see differences that amount to 3/1000 of an inch? So far no 24 MP camera is producing 3000 lw/ph and the K-5 tests at higher than 2000 lw/ph so the actual difference between actual cameras in a real, (as opposed to theoretical or test environment) is probably even less than that. In actual tests the difference between a K-5 and a D600 is about 500 lw/ph, so you're talking .0017 difference in resolution in a 20x30 inch print. There aren't many pictures that would make a difference for.
The observation would be every picture is a little bit sharper. The big question is "Do you care?" Every one's answer is different.