Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-30-2014, 10:21 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,695
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
The question is....is 16 megapixel enough?
Ron, the answer is another question back to you: Enough for what? As a working shooter you are aware of your presentation/output requirements, so only you can answer that question.

The trend seems to be that cameras with more megapixels have greater capabilities, though something like the Nikon D750 is providing a middle ground.

M

09-30-2014, 10:27 AM   #17
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 960
I have yet to find a use for over 10.
09-30-2014, 10:38 AM   #18
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,007
To be honest, I think the 10 MP K10D had enough pixels. At ISO 100, I prefer the output over my K5. For me, megapixels aren't the reason I upgraded. The better high ISO performance and larger dynamic range were the things that got me to buy the K5. I'm not knocking the K3 but I'm not likely to to upgrade unless my K5 fails and then it will be a tough decision as to whether I would buy a K3 or a K5lls which sells for a pretty good price right now. A couple of years ago, there wouldn't have been an issue but I'm now semi retired and don't have the disposable income I had when I was working.
09-30-2014, 10:46 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
only you can answer that question.
Exactly. For me, the K-3s extra pixies are a real help--giving me more reach for wildlife and allowing me to "compose-by-cropping" for sports. I'm unfazed by the larger file sizes (in part because I never shoot in bursts.)

09-30-2014, 11:00 AM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 804
I have made printouts of K5iis shots up to 50*70 cms, it was fine.
But without the AA filter, I sometimes have encountered moiré on birds feathers.
With the 24 Mpix of the K3 I never have seen moiré anymore.
So 24 Mpix can be useful to avoid moiré;
09-30-2014, 11:02 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Sure. I'd been happy with 6mp since 2006 until I made the jump to 16mp earlier this year, and the increased resolution wasn't exactly a life altering change (I wasn't expecting it to be). Unless my usage changes dramatically, 16mp should be enough for me for years to come.
Almost exactly my experience/response as well.
09-30-2014, 11:10 AM   #22
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,489
I find 16MP to be the sweet spot... just enough leeway to crop as I like, and if my technique is ok I can fill them all with meaningful information.
RAW files are not too big and there's plenty of detail for enlargement.
The 6MP of the K100D Super OTOH were a tad too few, especially if I wanted to crop something...
09-30-2014, 11:45 AM   #23
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,047
I have some large prints, including a 24x36 that I made from a picture I took of my wife at the beach when she was pregnant with our 2nd son. It was taken with a 7.2Mp Sony DSC-P200 (1/1.8" sensor). it's a beautiful printout. You can see the grains of sand.
So with my K20D's 14.6MP I get to crop to half the image, and it's still over 7MP. So I'd say 16MP is sufficient, unless you want to crop very, very heavily.

09-30-2014, 11:51 AM   #24
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,120
I was concerned about the seemingly ever-increasing pixel-count, but nearly a year working with the K-3 has changed my thinking on that score. What I do find challenging is that 24 MP makes me more critical of my lesser lenses. I find myself working more and more with my DA*16-50/2.8, DA*50-135/2.8, DA15/4 and FA31/1.8, all but the second of which I've brought away with me on my current trip abroad.

The increased demand on storage is readily solved by adding to hard-drive sizes, but you have to exercise greater discipline with which files you keep and which you discard, and that's not a bad thing in itself. Of course, if you don't want the extra MP, you could add a down sampling routine to your post-processing workflow.

However, at the moment body selection isn't just a question of MP, because the K-3 advances both features and technology, and those useful features such as the twin SD cards, faster processing, improved AF and metering, and RAW HDR development (which I've found invaluable in shooting outside in the strong Italian sunlight) aren't available in the older bodies. The K-S1 of course ups the pixel count from the earlier 16 MP bodies, but loses WR and doesn't add other features from the K-3 except for Pentax FLUcard compatibility.

Would I have bought a K-3 if it had stayed at 16 MP and added everything else? Possibly not: the ability to reframe and crop drastically with the extra pixels has proven valuable for me, too. But then, before I bought the K-3 I wouldn't have known what I was missing, either.
09-30-2014, 12:31 PM   #25
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
I'm happy with my K-30's 16 MP except in the rare cases of extreme cropping of high ISO, low light shots.

I'll happily take more pixels. I'd rather have too much and down-sample or ignore them than need them and not have them. Storage is relatively cheap.
09-30-2014, 01:27 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,932
I don't need 16 megapixels, except when I do. Printing big or cropping a lot are both reasons to use more. There are times that I wish I had 50 megapixels, because the bird I was framing was just too small. I like the K3 as a camera, my computer doesn't gripe much with the size of the files and memory is cheap, so I don't see a big problem with more megapixels. But it is a very personal thing, too and for the most part I don't need more than 10.
09-30-2014, 01:32 PM   #27
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
I would be happy with a Nikon D3s for high ISO shooting at 16 Mp. As far as I know there's nothing in APS-c that will give me anywhere close to that. But, for most images, I could happily use my K-5. The K-3 is for wildlife and long lenses, that don't quite have enough reach for what I'm shooting, or for macro images that don't fill the frame, with the lens I'm using.

Last edited by normhead; 09-30-2014 at 02:56 PM.
09-30-2014, 01:52 PM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Orel, Russia
Posts: 193
When I had K-5 and K-5 IIs, I always had a thought that 16mp is a little bit less than I wanted. Sure, usually it was more than enough but I always wanted to have an ability to see more details at 100% viewing.
Then I decided to make a test of my K-5 IIs + Tamron 17-50/2.8 (a very sharp lens) vs Sony Xperia S mobile phone (12mp). I photographed at daylight, however it still surprised me quite a bit, - there was almost the same amount of details on both photographs! When I printed the photographs on an inkjet printer, the photographs looked even more similar to each other. After that test my wish of greater megapixels in my camera increased.
Now, with the K-3, I don't feel a lack of megapixels anymore. It is a golden mean to me.
09-30-2014, 02:05 PM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,182
Processing Power is the key

I am totally satisfied with 16MP as a matter of fact my favorite camera prior to the K-5 was an 8MP Canon 30D. The big files are a hassle to download process and save, but sometimes they come in handy when editing. For example you can cut-out a small portion of an image and still have a decent file to work with. When editing you can blow up an image much larger without having to worry about Jaggies. More megapixels usually means slightly better resolution. and of course if you want to print Large...
09-30-2014, 02:10 PM   #30
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
Wow a lot of reactions!!!!!!!!

QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
Did you find any problem with bigger files or something or else?
What about the smaller AF points and faster AF motor? The bigger screen? I don`t need 24Mp either but tempted by those upgrades.
I do like the technic inside the K-3. But only rarely I made an Image that I couldn't make with my trusted K-5. But there where some, but those could already be made with the K-5II. I did like the AF-points. No interest in the bigger files that made my laptop slow. For me there is something extra and maybe strange, I love my K-5 Silver and that was a lost for the K-3.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
Most of the time the 6mp from my ist DL2 is enough. If not, the K-01 is more than adequate for high quality 13x19 prints, which is as large as my Canon Pixma can print.
I also have a A3+ printer, but am looking around for something new to replace my HP B9180 from 2009. I did some print at photokina. I did at Epson a 44 inch print wide of a full size K-3 image and that is magic. But not the printer I was looking for, but got that print because that printer was available. I was looking at the 17 inch printer to make at max 17x25,5 inch prints. I have made a 59 inch print out of a K-01 file and that also brings some magic.

QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
Ron, the answer is another question back to you: Enough for what? As a working shooter you are aware of your presentation/output requirements, so only you can answer that question. The trend seems to be that cameras with more megapixels have greater capabilities, though something like the Nikon D750 is providing a middle ground.
Being trapped in camera's with hi specs and more megapixels is one thing yes. For newspaper and magazine I don't need the megapixels. They are fine with 7 megapixel. It's also a question for everyone, but also for does it change in the future?

QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
I was concerned about the seemingly ever-increasing pixel-count, but nearly a year working with the K-3 has changed my thinking on that score. What I do find challenging is that 24 MP makes me more critical of my lesser lenses. I find myself working more and more with my DA*16-50/2.8, DA*50-135/2.8, DA15/4 and FA31/1.8, all but the second of which I've brought away with me on my current trip abroad.

However, at the moment body selection isn't just a question of MP, because the K-3 advances both features and technology, and those useful features such as the twin SD cards, faster processing, improved AF and metering, and RAW HDR development (which I've found invaluable in shooting outside in the strong Italian sunlight) aren't available in the older bodies. The K-S1 of course ups the pixel count from the earlier 16 MP bodies, but loses WR and doesn't add other features from the K-3 except for Pentax FLUcard compatibility.
Never found any use for a second card slot. Never bought the FluCard. Didn't make prints that where that big to be impossible with K-5/K-01. No use for the AA-filter thingy, RAW HDR no idea what to do with it. Improved AF is great. The metering never was a problem. The processing, well the K-3 would be faster when it had 16 megapixel and PRIME III.

I'm on great lenses, so no kit lens for me.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't need 16 megapixels, except when I do. Printing big or cropping a lot are both reasons to use more. There are times that I wish I had 50 megapixels, because the bird I was framing was just too small. I like the K3 as a camera, my computer doesn't gripe much with the size of the files and memory is cheap, so I don't see a big problem with more megapixels. But it is a very personal thing, too and for the most part I don't need more than 10.
Mostly I also don't need more then 10.....When in future we go print less and less and only go online, will we need the extra pixels?
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 07:53 PM. | 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