[Allison]

Agreed. Howerver, if different sizes(16, 24 or 36) of raw format can be selected, 36mp is really an advantage!

Well, I guess if there was a mode to switch a FF to being able to use the DA lenses at the lower resolution it could be an advantage. And i can see why you would want that...But that would be 36 down to 24, which is still a big file.

I didn't think I would ever be one of the people to say this, but I am wondering if we haven't finally gone to mp that are impractical. Don't get me wrong, I know in 20 years we will be shooting with ridiculous cameras with ridiculous file sizes, but I am starting to question why. The higher resolutions we are talking about now are only needed for printing and how many people are really printing larger than 20x30?

[SKwan]

The higher resolutions we are talking about now are only needed for printing and how many people are really printing larger than 20x30?

Frankly speaking, 24mp should be already enough for me. I take photos in RAW(16mp)+JPG(2mp). For posting photos in my server, dropbox and other web sites, 2mp is a right justified size. RAW file is used when I need to PP or crop the photos to my preferred styles. Besides I often get fun when enlarging the file to get the details which our eyes cannot reach!!

[Allison]

Besides I often get fun when enlarging the file to get the details which our eyes cannot reach!!

I think that is going to be interesting with the removal of the anti-aliasing filter on the K5IIs. It should really refine the details that would otherwise not be seen without blowing up the image. I would assume that since Pentax already offers that now, that they would continue it when they release their new flagship aps-c. I would think that the removal of the filter would really make the a 24mp camera more than enough!

[Cannikin]

Well, I guess if there was a mode to switch a FF to being able to use the DA lenses at the lower resolution it could be an advantage. And i can see why you would want that...But that would be 36 down to 24, which is still a big file.

APS-C at the same pixel density of 36MP FF is 16MP:

36/(1.5^2) = 16

There are several reasons why the D800's sensor is widely considered to be a direct upscaling of the D7000's.

---

Last edited by Cannikin; 05-17-2013 at 03:58 PM.

[Winder]

What people seem to be missing is that modern RAW converter/image processors do a better job with higher pixel density sensors. If Sony produces a 16MP and a 24MP sensor with identical S/N ratios the modern processors will do a better job handling noise and detail with the 24MP sensor. The more "pixels" the RAW converter/image processor has to look at the better it can determine what is noise and what is detail. The easier it is for the RAW converter to identify random noise and hot pixels.

[ElJamoquio]

I just don't think I want to go with a 24mp camera that is aps-c unless it has the filter removed and even then, I don't know if it is worth it.

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.

[normhead]

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.

[SKwan]

Actually when I thought about 24mp, I had assumed it is with AA filter removed.
Besides, 24mp should be a compromised solution currently between image details, noise reduction, PP effectiveness, saving speed, storage, retrieving/processing time ...