Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-01-2014, 10:24 AM   #286
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,750
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I once printed a picture taken with a low res came to 5x7 at 72 DPI. It was a good picture. I was clearly stretching the limits of acceptability but it was acceptable. and it hung on our wall for quite a while. The thing is, I'd lost the original file and that was all I had. I think sometimes people say things, that will discourage others from trying. So, no, you don't have to have 300 dpi. You don't even have to have 150 dpi. If you have an image you like and it's over 120 dpi, give it a try, you may like it. I'd have a lot more sympathy with the high res guys, if their approach wasn't "my stuff is better than yours because I use a better camera." Now the guy who said that, said it with a smirk on his face, but, he believed it, until he compare my output with his output. He hasn't said it again since.
That for sure, at the begining we had an 1mx2m shoot example and I would say with 14MP it would perfectly fine if you don't go close to see details. For close details the 75dpi you get are a little limiting and for sure with more I'll see the difference.

It doesn't means it is bad or you should not try. There a big difference between a "you can't see the difference looking closely to it" and "the quality is too low". That's maybe this kind of scale that we miss here.

From the printing industry we know 300dpi is already near perfect and the standard. This allow K-7 or K-5 to print up to A3 with near perfect quality... With the removal of low pass filter you would get the same out of K3, provided the lens follow with an A2 shoot.

Still, the 75dpi real resolution would be already nice and I'll be with you: try it. It might bring you to 1mx2m for a K-7 and 1.5x3m for a K3 or 4mx3m for a D800. Beware through the lens and shooting condition may get you more something that is more like 20-30 real dpi than the theoretical 75 if you shoot is not perfect from the begining.

Anyway, try it, you might be surprised positively !

11-10-2014, 04:34 AM   #287
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Joensuu (Finland)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
Pentax K-3 vs K-5IIs

Sorry for the late comeback, I got really busy with my upcoming trip.

I shot the scene bracketing shots using DA70 at f/8 and ISO 100 and ISO 80 respectevely (I did use the same shutter speed for both bodies as I only use half stops shutter speeds)

First on a tripod at lowest ISO and then handheld at lowest ISO and ISO 1600.

Disclaimer: The scene is crappy and all but it has shadows, highlights, blown areas, specular highlights, some foliage, small details, etc...
Focus was achieved through liveview on the blackboard that reads "Cafe con leche + 5 medialunas" on the lower left of the center (behind the other black board). The focus plane is arround 30 meters away so DoF should be good at f/8 without compromising quality due to diffraction too much.
Of course:
- 2sec timer (so MLU on and SR off automatically, thanks Pentax)
- Tripod
- DNG RAW
- 6 bracketed shots from 1/30 to 1/180 in half stops so there´s over and under exposure to play with.

For the handheld attemp, focus was achieved putting the lowest right corner AF point on the same blackboard than before, using AF single mode. SR was engaged and everything else remains the same.

My personal conclusion:
There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two. That said, there´s also no significant difference in noise or dynamic range either. That`s a great thing, since the K-3 does everything the K-5 does and more.
Also, the performance and handling of the K-3 is much better. Haptic feedback is amazing. Liveview is a thing of it´s own.

Here´s the DROPBOX FOLDER with all the RAW files.
11-10-2014, 05:24 AM   #288
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
For me 16 MP is more than enough. I was happy with the 6 MP of my *istDS (for the most part), I only upgraded to a K-5 because the *istDS died and I wanted video anyway. That being said, if the MP don't come at the cost of dynamic range and low light performance, I don't mind the extra resolution. Luckily SD cards have become cheap enough, and lossy DNG is pretty good too (a way to reduce the raw files in resolution in Lightroom without losing anything else would be great though). The only problem I have is that it's much harder to get non-shaken photos, despite the SR.
11-10-2014, 05:33 AM   #289
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,092
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
For me 16 MP is more than enough. I was happy with the 6 MP of my *istDS (for the most part), I only upgraded to a K-5 because the *istDS died and I wanted video anyway. That being said, if the MP don't come at the cost of dynamic range and low light performance, I don't mind the extra resolution. Luckily SD cards have become cheap enough, and lossy DNG is pretty good too (a way to reduce the raw files in resolution in Lightroom without losing anything else would be great though). The only problem I have is that it's much harder to get non-shaken photos, despite the SR.

+1 o that. Frankly, K5II is better camera than what I consider excellent in every department. Maybe slightly lighter body but that also depends on what I mount on it. With Tamron 70-200 weight is fine.

11-10-2014, 05:50 AM   #290
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,684
I agree that the lighter body of the K5 series is a plus. I picked up a K5 recently at a crazy good price and was deligted to see how light and compact it seemed next to my K3. I use both cameras a lot and often together to avoid lens changing on desert hikes. It is the perfect combination since I can make use of the strengths of each camera when those differences matter (such as low light autofocus with the K3
11-10-2014, 08:48 AM   #291
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
My personal conclusion:
There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two.

wow and there should be......
11-10-2014, 09:59 AM   #292
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,416
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two. That said, there´s also no significant difference in noise or dynamic range either.
From a quick look in SilkyPix Pro, using sharpening etc. settings that I would normally use that is indeed the case. It does not matter whether you downscale the K-3 one or upscale the K-5iis one - once you'd tweaked the exposure and contrast for them to be the same they look pretty much identical. I would agree though that having the extra twiddly bits of the K-3 is possibly worth it. I won't be dumping my K-5ii yet.
11-10-2014, 03:46 PM   #293
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 973
I think 16 mp is enough for the vast majority of photograpers today. I feel no compelling need to upgrade my camera at this time.

11-10-2014, 05:24 PM   #294
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 766
To turn the question around, how could 16 mp NOT be enough? The pro Nikon D4s costs $6500 and has 16 mp. A pro level $6500 camera would NOT be hobbled with too few mp's - would it?
11-10-2014, 05:42 PM   #295
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
To turn the question around, how could 16 mp NOT be enough? The pro Nikon D4s costs $6500 and has 16 mp. A pro level $6500 camera would NOT be hobbled with too few mp's - would it?
Not every pro is the same, has the same needs. The D4s is probably a sports photographers camera? He needs SPEED, but resolution is not so important (the prints won't be large). However the photographer doing photography for billboard ads will not be happy with 16 MP... he'll be looking at a 50 MP medium format camera. Which for the sports photographer would be completely useless... an iPhone would probably be better than the MF camera for his work.


16 MP should usually be plenty though, unless you want to crop a lot.
11-10-2014, 06:21 PM   #296
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,684
Am I right in assuming that the main advantage of the 16 megapixels of the K5iis is the greater tolerance for shake and movement when handheld.
11-10-2014, 06:31 PM   #297
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,376
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
However the photographer doing photography for billboard ads will not be happy with 16 MP
Nobody walks up to a billboard and examines the image from 30 cm away. Apply a vivid colour transformation, and your smartphone produces good enough images for billboards.

Most people are uncomfortable getting up close to large prints. Look at the 20x30 posters in stores or even go to an art gallery. If anyone gets up close to a piece of art, it's to look for texture and the little imperfections that come with original works. If the general public wants to see images that fill their entire field of view, they go to an IMAX theatre. The wonder of electronic communication is placing us in a low-res, ephemeral world that only has a shallow resemblance to nature.
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
16 MP should usually be plenty though, unless you want to crop a lot.
I agree, but with the K-3 the extra resolution was packaged with a camera that is better than the original K-5 in almost every way. The incremental cost of getting higher resolution is minimal and if 24MP results in only a few happier owners or only helps to sell a few extra cameras, it is still worth it to a manufacturer that needs to keep producing new models to remain competitive.
11-10-2014, 08:57 PM   #298
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,676
QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
Am I right in assuming that the main advantage of the 16 megapixels of the K5iis is the greater tolerance for shake and movement when handheld.
As I am typing this, I am trying to visualize why this might be the case.

I am also wondering in comparison to what?


Steve
11-10-2014, 10:20 PM   #299
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
As I am typing this, I am trying to visualize why this might be the case.

I am also wondering in comparison to what?


Steve
Well, on a 6 MP camera you could shake the camera quite a bit till you notice it. On a 16 MP camera it's less, and on a 24 MP camera even less. Of course only when viewed at 100%, but hey, that's how photos are looked at, right?


@RGlasel: Fair enough... but why do MF cameras have 50 MP these days?
11-11-2014, 02:49 AM   #300
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,623
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Well, on a 6 MP camera you could shake the camera quite a bit till you notice it. On a 16 MP camera it's less, and on a 24 MP camera even less. Of course only when viewed at 100%, but hey, that's how photos are looked at, right?


@RGlasel: Fair enough... but why do MF cameras have 50 MP these days?
I suppose it's in order to do studio birding of a wild hawk (in studio) and then crop the eye... :-|
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 11:33 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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