Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-11-2014, 05:30 AM   #301
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,655
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
My wording was poor. First users of he K3 often complained about shots being blury or not in clear focus. Pixel peeping also showed some blur. Most of us adapted and just take more care now. The idea was that slightly faster shutter speeds are necessary to avoid the problem. A similar issue comes out when using TCs handheld.

11-11-2014, 06:14 AM   #302
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,828
It's also an issue for D800 series users from what I understand It can produce stunning resolution but you have to take great care to get it. The guys at Imaging Resources working in their lab had to try 7 times to get a good clean image... and they were working in a lab.... higher resolutions reward the disciplined.
11-11-2014, 06:19 AM   #303
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,655
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It's also an issue for D800 series users from what I understand It can produce stunning resolution but you have to take great care to get it. The guys at imagine resource working in their lab had to try 7 times to get a good clean image... and they were working in a lab.... higher resolutions reward the disciplined.
Yes, and it also encourages tripod use! I was stunned at the improvement in IQ when I first used a tripod with the K3. My shooting environment makes a tripod too much of a hassle most of the time so I rarely use it. However, my technique has also improved so it is less of a loss now. Tripods almost always improve the image if you have the time and opportunity to use them. But I never felt the need for a tripod while using the K5iis. I do not deny that their use would have benefited some photos even with the K5iis.
11-11-2014, 06:44 AM   #304
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
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?
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
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.
Well the D4s has pixels that are pretty much at least one stop better then the K-5 has. So there is already one advantage when working with those files. They hold up their task a little longer then we can with K-5. Speed in general is ofcourse one big item to start designing. Not only incamera works, but also working with those files on laptops in presserooms and transferring them around the globe (yes there slow wifi at almost every sportsvenue around the world).

Many sportsimages are cropped like hell, but that isn't any issue when for say a newspaper. They print on mayby 150dpi so for those pictures in newspapers you only need like 4 megapixel. For magazines a little more, but with 7 megapixel you are in the game. Using those images for larger prints (yes that happends a lot) then you can go a long way with those 16 megapixel, since the 3D had only 12 megapixel and is still a great camera.

11-11-2014, 09:31 AM   #305
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,343
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
why do MF cameras have 50 MP these days?
Only the MF camera manufacturers know for sure, but I'll take a couple of guesses. No one spends more money to get less, so there is a natural demand for more pixels in more expensive cameras. If the more expensive camera doesn't come with more pixels, it had better have more of something else, that is equally impressive. Higher skill requirements in order to take advantage of advanced features is not going to scare away the prospective buyer of a $10,000 and up camera system; after all there is no requirement to actually use the advanced features one is spending their money on. Another reason might be technical, it could very well be more expensive to produce larger format sensors with larger photo-sites than to simply produce larger sensors with the same pixel density, especially if sensors with higher pixel densities can perform almost as well, within the limits of human perception.

It is one thing to argue over the theoretical advantages of one sensor over another once we have purchased a camera, but another thing to spend hard earned cash based on a theoretical advantage that you can't touch or see in a shop when a salesperson is trying to coax you into making a decision.
11-11-2014, 07:00 PM   #306
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 758
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well the D4s has pixels that are pretty much at least one stop better then the K-5 has. So there is already one advantage when working with those files. They hold up their task a little longer then we can with K-5. Speed in general is ofcourse one big item to start designing. Not only incamera works, but also working with those files on laptops in presserooms and transferring them around the globe (yes there slow wifi at almost every sportsvenue around the world). Many sportsimages are cropped like hell, but that isn't any issue when for say a newspaper. They print on mayby 150dpi so for those pictures in newspapers you only need like 4 megapixel. For magazines a little more, but with 7 megapixel you are in the game. Using those images for larger prints (yes that happends a lot) then you can go a long way with those 16 megapixel, since the 3D had only 12 megapixel and is still a great camera.

Thanks for the great perspective. That matches what I've been led to believe by others - that the quality of the pixels also matters. Remarkably, photography can be such a diverse pursuit. So the right tools may be SO varied. So that may be the best way to look at it - is 16 MP enough to get the job done? If "yes", then the answer is "yes"; if "no", then "no". I don't print much, certainly not large. My 6 MP K100d Super has turned in some photos I am really happy with. For the most part, the 16 MP of my K5c is overkill, but the other great features of the K5c are very useful.
11-20-2014, 08:44 AM   #307
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
Thanks for the great perspective. That matches what I've been led to believe by others - that the quality of the pixels also matters. Remarkably, photography can be such a diverse pursuit. So the right tools may be SO varied. So that may be the best way to look at it - is 16 MP enough to get the job done? If "yes", then the answer is "yes"; if "no", then "no". I don't print much, certainly not large. My 6 MP K100d Super has turned in some photos I am really happy with. For the most part, the 16 MP of my K5c is overkill, but the other great features of the K5c are very useful.
To be honest, this best tool for the job is a common argument but I find it strange.

For most it mostly concentrate to have a little more or little less pixels or to decide on APSC vs FF and things alike.

All of this isn't going to go for a dramatic difference anyway... There a dramatic differtence between most compacts and most DSLR. When you click to take a photo on a DSLR, it is almost instant (including in most case AF), the frame rate is quite good and the performance in high isos is also quite interresting. Lastly, it is possible to get real shallow deph of field, something most compact struggle to get.

Now between a D4s or another Nikon FF or between the big pixel K5 and smaller pixels K3 related to high iso performance, this is small. That less than what you can get by starting to use a good desnoising software, that's less than the APSC to FF and that's less than the CCD to CMOS change too.

Most of the offering in DSLR is really narrow in term of quality for what is currently sold. All features set are almost in a factor of 2: sensor surface, frames per second, image resolution. The biggest difference maybe is the AF that is really different between entry and pro level. There of course a few different bodies like 645Z but they are still in the same area.

Ibrid is just a little smaller and with EVF. You get more dust on your sensor, smaller wide angle and bigger teles.

I remember the buy shooting the olympics with a large format film camera. Not only he got good shoots out of it, but it got something really interresting and different. What we can call a differentiator. All the other play mostly in the same area meaning almost any good recent DSLR can do rougly the same kind of job as the others with the proper accessories and lenses.
11-20-2014, 10:52 AM   #308
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,475
I've had a K3 for over a month now as an upgrade from an original K5. The extra megapixels have not done a lot for me (or I haven't really taken advantage of them).

Compared to my K5, I do notice the K3 is noisier, but I do not find it a problem at all. A few weeks ago, I was out and about taking shots at night. I was shooting up to ISO 6400. I do not pay close attention to what the EV is, but I used the high ISO so I could hand hold my shots as it was street photography, and I didn't have a tripod.

The shots at full resolution did not seem very bad at all with respect to noise. The extra resolution makes the noise a finer grain than what I would have with the K5. The lack of an AA filter makes the images with the K3 quite sharp such that a little bit of noise reduction in PP can make the photos quite nice. The lack of an AA filter does make the idea of cropping for extra reach an appealing concept to me.

With my K5, noise was never much of an issue, but when I had noisier shots, I never felt like I could get much out of NR. I would lose too much detail or the images would start to look fake. Ultimately, if I look at similar shots I've taken with both cameras, I feel like the noise is only marginally worse that the K5. The extra MP aren't really necessary for me, but other features of the K3 were quite important to me, thus the purchase.

A k5iis would certainly offer the benefits I see with the K3 and potentially more since it also lacks the AA filter and has even better NR. But for all the talk of noise, I've rarely seen noise as an issue once printed for any of my Pentax cameras. Even my K10d didn't seem nearly as noisy on paper as it did on screen. That camera was notoriously noisy above ISO 400 in most cases, yet I have some fantastic prints from it at ISO 1000. Noise always looks worse at 72 dpi than it will at 200+ dpi.

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 02:33 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