Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-09-2014, 09:02 AM - 1 Like   #196
Pentaxian
traderdrew's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 570
16 megapixels is enough if i don't have to crop it to much. 24 is enough for me. Here is a photo I took with the K-3 and the Sigma 500mm F/4.5 and I think the birds were more than 150 feet away. Photographed at F/5.6 I cropped 70 to 80% of the photo off creating a depth of field that was deep enough for both of them to be in focus. The bird in front wasn't quite as sharp as the one in back but it was good enough.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98462832@N04/15301184849/

10-09-2014, 11:17 AM   #197
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,535
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
bummer but yes, unless it's a D4s.
But it is then sold as a feature to professionals. I guess the one that thing by default more MP is better and look for their first DSLR would not go to D4s even if it had 36MP.

Wehn saying the very low impact on a FF to go up to 36MP compared to only 12MP for A7s that ALSO use improved photosites by other mean than just their number I bet the fast DSLR low resolution body was more a limitation of processing time, buffer size on one side and the idea that sport shoot aren't going to be that sharp in many case or to be ever printed in art galeries in huge size.

No need, more difficult, why bother? D4s customers are not exactly the same as 645Z customers!
10-09-2014, 11:29 AM   #198
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
But it is then sold as a feature to professionals. I guess the one that thing by default more MP is better and look for their first DSLR would not go to D4s even if it had 36MP.

Wehn saying the very low impact on a FF to go up to 36MP compared to only 12MP for A7s that ALSO use improved photosites by other mean than just their number I bet the fast DSLR low resolution body was more a limitation of processing time, buffer size on one side and the idea that sport shoot aren't going to be that sharp in many case or to be ever printed in art galeries in huge size.

No need, more difficult, why bother? D4s customers are not exactly the same as 645Z customers!

Oh boy are you wrong on that one. They need to be sharp and some of them get large prints, like big as a wall.
10-09-2014, 11:29 AM   #199
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,535
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you left out the word noticeable... I'd probably agree. As I said, photography tends to go in halves and doubles. I'd argue even a 36% increase is negligible. It is on that term that this has gotten stuck. You say you can see, it, I say it's a saw off.
Double is when you use the surface, or the quantity of light, the exposure time, the isos.

1.4X the apperture get stop down; 1 stop, get half of the light.
1.4X the lw/ph allowx you to double the printing surface and keep the same printing resolution (so you keep same quality on A2 that you have on A3).
1.5X is the scale factor between APSC & FF.
1.5X is also the deph of field difference between APSC & FF.

1.36X is near to 1.4 and so plaintly releavant. It speak in double, just because it is a distance like apperture or crop factor, you have to factor and think in square root.

When I see how many speculate on a getting f/2.8 zoom instead of f/4, going FF instead of APSC to get 1.5X dimensions on the sensor and divide the deph of field by 1.5 it seems many would think of 1.36 factor would be considered as very relevant for them... See how much many are willing to pay to get an 1.2 lens of an 1.4 (only 1.16X) or 1.4 instead of 1.8 (only 1.28X).

---------- Post added 10-09-14 at 08:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Oh boy are you wrong on that one. They need to be sharp and some of them get large prints, like big as a wall.
Yeah but then do you really have the choice? I mean where the D4X MF equivalent with 50MP ?


Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-09-2014 at 11:37 AM.
10-09-2014, 12:09 PM   #200
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Yeah but then do you really have the choice? I mean where the D4X MF equivalent with 50MP ?
Maybe in the works like there once was a D3x, but maybe due to the marketdevelopment for camerasales there never will be such a camera. In the time of the D3x there wasn't a D810.

---------- Post added 09-10-14 at 21:12 ----------

Oh this is a funny one (googleing):

This is about the great leap going from 5mp to 8 megapixel:

Don't buy into the "8 is better than 5" marketing strategy without considering other aspects of image quality:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/the-megapixel-race-where-did-it-start-where-will-it-end.html
10-09-2014, 01:03 PM   #201
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,535
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Maybe in the works like there once was a D3x, but maybe due to the marketdevelopment for camerasales there never will be such a camera. In the time of the D3x there wasn't a D810.

---------- Post added 09-10-14 at 21:12 ----------

Oh this is a funny one (googleing):

This is about the great leap going from 5mp to 8 megapixel:

Don't buy into the "8 is better than 5" marketing strategy without considering other aspects of image quality:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/the-megapixel-race-where-did-it-start-where-will-it-end.html
Yeah it was always like that... And now it is no longer 5MP that seems good and enough but 16MP... I let you imagine what it will be in 10 years, when everybody and their dog would have 4K OLED display with 100000:1 (this is more than 16EV). contrast and where the first 8K displays will be available (32MP by the way).
10-09-2014, 01:13 PM   #202
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,490
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Yeah it was always like that... And now it is no longer 5MP that seems good and enough but 16MP... I let you imagine what it will be in 10 years, when everybody and their dog would have 4K OLED display with 100000:1 (this is more than 16EV). contrast and where the first 8K displays will be available (32MP by the way).
Personally, I'd rather up the bit count of the RAW from, say, 12 to 14 (yeah, I know, some already have it, but apparently there's not much information in those 2 more bits) than the MP count from 16 or 24 to 36...
10-09-2014, 02:35 PM   #203
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,535
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Personally, I'd rather up the bit count of the RAW from, say, 12 to 14 (yeah, I know, some already have it, but apparently there's not much information in those 2 more bits) than the MP count from 16 or 24 to 36...
When having only 12 or 14 bit for storage that the best you can get. Going 16 bit IEEE standard define a format that can store up to 40EV of dyanmic range.

The problem is more where to find a sensor that could record a dyanmic range like that ! JXR or Jpeg extended range is a format with both lossy or lossless compression (it is your choice) that would support such pictures.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-09-2014 at 02:42 PM.
10-09-2014, 02:56 PM   #204
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,490
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
When having only 12 or 14 bit for storage that the best you can get. Going 16 bit IEEE standard define a format that can store up to 40EV of dyanmic range.
I would be happy with 14bits holding valuable information, not 12bits + 2bits of garbage...

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The problem is more where to find a sensor that could record a dyanmic range like that ! JXR or Jpeg extended range is a format with both lossy or lossless compression (it is your choice) that would support such pictures.
My point exactly.

Edit: on Creative Live there are some fine gentlemens speaking 'bout 6K video, that's nineteen-plus MP, for video! -_-"

Last edited by LensBeginner; 10-09-2014 at 03:13 PM.
10-09-2014, 03:26 PM   #205
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
I would be happy with 14bits holding valuable information, not 12bits + 2bits of garbage...
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
When having only 12 or 14 bit for storage that the best you can get. Going 16 bit IEEE standard define a format that can store up to 40EV of dyanmic range.
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Personally, I'd rather up the bit count of the RAW from, say, 12 to 14 (yeah, I know, some already have it, but apparently there's not much information in those 2 more bits) than the MP count from 16 or 24 to 36...
So how much do we miss on 12-bit? If I remember correctly that at iso800 and above (or so) there isn't even any information left over for the extra bits and 12-bit would be sufficient...

Anyone on this area?
10-09-2014, 03:33 PM   #206
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,490
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
So how much do we miss on 12-bit? If I remember correctly that at iso800 and above (or so) there isn't even any information left over for the extra bits and 12-bit would be sufficient...

Anyone on this area?
I saw a ISO/EV chart regarding the K-01 while I was considering the purchase... I believe you're absolutely right.
I'm not into marketing stuff, so when I said 14bits, 16bits I intended valuable data, not "bits for the sake of it", just like megapixels.
Can't find the charts now... it was a comparison with the K-5, if I remember correctly...

Ah, there it is (hope I can post links):
http://www. techradar .com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/pentax-k-01-1081032/review/5
(remove spaces if needed & scroll down for DR vs ISO chart. Not bits, but still it gives an idea)
10-09-2014, 03:51 PM   #207
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
I saw a ISO/EV chart regarding the K-01 while I was considering the purchase... I believe you're absolutely right.
I'm not into marketing stuff, so when I said 14bits, 16bits I intended valuable data, not "bits for the sake of it", just like megapixels.
Can't find the charts now... it was a comparison with the K-5, if I remember correctly...

Ah, there it is (hope I can post links):
Pentax Forums - The Ultimate Resource for Everything Pentax. techradar .com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/pentax-k-01-1081032/review/5
(remove spaces if needed & scroll down for DR vs ISO chart. Not bits, but still it gives an idea)
thanks, didn't see this before, but I know my K-01 is great until iso1600 and then the K-5 is simply the better camera.
10-09-2014, 04:06 PM   #208
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,490
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
thanks, didn't see this before, but I know my K-01 is great until iso1600 and then the K-5 is simply the better camera.
Besides, after ISO1600 the mush-machine (a.k.a. RAW noise reduction) kicks in, so I think it really is better to just shoot at ISO1600 and underexpose as needed, then push in post.

You lose DR as well, granted, but at least you don't lose that much detail, as I believe that PP software has better algorithms (and a PC has much more processing power) than in-camera NR.
10-09-2014, 04:12 PM   #209
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Besides, after ISO1600 the mush-machine (a.k.a. RAW noise reduction) kicks in, so I think it really is better to just shoot at ISO1600 and underexpose as needed, then push in post.

You lose DR as well, granted, but at least you don't lose that much detail, as I believe that PP software has better algorithms (and a PC has much more processing power) than in-camera NR.
Yes this should be improved a lot. I think that a camera should be as good as Lightroom and being just half as good.
10-09-2014, 05:00 PM   #210
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
I'm not really following the technical discussion so, for what it's worth:
K-3, F*600/4 & Tamron 1.4x TC ISO=250
Cropped to .80MP

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
4k, auto, camera, comparison, computer, course, dslr, filter, head, image, jpg, k-3, k-5, k3, k5, lens, lenses, life, medium, megapixel, people, photography, pictures, post, quality, resolution, steve
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the image processor in Pentax K-r is good enough? dmnf Photographic Technique 10 05-15-2013 09:43 AM
Pentax WG-2 Waterproof 16-Megapixel Fl_Gulfer Pentax Price Watch 3 03-10-2013 12:35 PM
is 16-45 mm wide enough? boone Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 01-26-2011 12:56 PM
[Auto-ISO] so, is the K5 and Kr brave enough to use max iso? Reportage Pentax K-5 13 10-24-2010 03:30 PM
Is the 16-50mm sharp enough? lbenac Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-09-2009 03:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top