[RuiC]

Well discussed in many threads about FF and aps-c. I sold my K-3 because I didn't need the pixels. Just thinking about buying a second K-01. The question is....is 16 megapixel enough? For now, for the coming years? I wonder how you think or feel about this.

A few years ago I read an editorial article over the french "Chasseurs d'Images" where they stated that their evaluation on the Kodadchrome64 was around 30Mpx

[RonHendriks1966]

A few years ago I read an editorial article over the french "Chasseurs d'Images" where they stated that their evaluation on the Kodadchrome64 was around 30Mpx

I'm not so into the film era, is that full size 645?

[RobA_Oz]

Never found any use for a second card slot. Never bought the FluCard.

As noted elsewhere, I had my first ever SD card failure after a day's shooting on holiday around the Greek Islands. I did recover most of the lost files using Drive Genius, but I'd lost three that I still had in JPEG format on the second SD card. Now I'm copying DNG files onto both. I now understand why professionals tend to like dual card slots.

Having bought the FLUcard, I have started to appreciate its possibilities, particularly in macro work, although it hasn't had much work yet. I can see that some wouldn't have a use for it, too.

As with the use for 24 MP, everyone's requirements are different.

[RuiC]

I'm not so into the film era, is that full size 645?

It was slide film 24x36 - 64 ISO

[Biro]

I'm joining this string late (as usual) but I've posted my opinion on the original question in a number of different forms over the past year or so. And, of course, everyone's needs may be different. But I fall firmly in the camp with those who believe that - as of right now - 16mp continues to be the sweet spot for APS-C. Of course, that could change before long with the never-ending progress in sensor technology - possibly as soon as the next full generation of sensors. But, right now, there always seems to be some kind of price to be paid for going with APS-C sensors that feature higher resolution than 16mp. It could be noise at higher ISOs, dynamic range, slower in-camera processing - anything. And everyone's sensitivity to those factors may be different. But, in overall terms, I still think 16mp is the way to go with APS-C unless one has some kind of specialized need. A year or two from now may be different. That's why I picked up a K-5 IIs recently instead of a K-3. YMMV. As for the future, if a camera takes good enough images today, it should continue to do so in the future as long as it's fully functioning. I wouldn't stress over it.

[lesmore49]

I think my 16 mp in my K-5 are fine. I also think my 10 mp in my K10D are fine. I've got some excellent photographs....even when enlarged to 11 X 14. If the light is right, I feel both bodies' sensors are excellent.

[stevebrot]

I always up sample my images to 300 dpi, regardless of what the original resolution was. If I had an Epson printer, that would be 360 DPI.

For other than home use, I would consult with the service bureau or print shop to see what their recommendations and requirements are. Many have superior tools and will do the upsample for you.


Steve

[normhead]

For other than home use, I would consult with the service bureau or print shop to see what their recommendations and requirements are. Many have superior tools and will do the upsample for you.


Steve

Mine uses Canon printers, but their prices are so cheep , they charge to do the upsample. That's where I learned to upsample to 300 DPI for Canon printers.

[stevebrot]

their evaluation on the Kodadchrome64 was around 30Mpx

30 Mpx of what? Kodachrome 64 was an excellent slide film, According to the Kodak spec sheet its maximum resolution is only about 85 lp/mm @ 10% contrast.

I'm not so into the film era, is that full size 645?

You can drum scan up to 8000 dpi from a 35mm Kodacolor 400 negative from a throwaway camera and generate an impressive number of pixels of pure junk in the process. There is no such thing as a Megapixel equivalent for film.*


Steve

* Though it is fun to calculate what it might be. I screwed up the calculation a couple of times, but at 50% contrast (for equivalence) it comes out to about 7 Megapixels.

[interested_observer]

I just wanted to add a bit more to the discussion here. I don't believe that its the resolution of the sensor, so much as the size of the pixels. It's the combination of the APS-C sensor size and the pixel size that just happens to combine to a very "optimal" 16MP resolution. I think that the pixel size (and I have not done any extensive research) is large enough to efficiently collect the light, coupled with low noise, while being sufficiently small in order to allow sufficient resolution for large printing, while supporting sufficient area for reasonable cropping. If you look at the pixel size across a number of bodies and their sensors, I think that you start to see that there is a pretty good sweet area.

• Pentax K100D - 7.87 microns
• Nikon D4 - 7.4 microns
• Canon 5DIII - 6.25 microns
• Nikon D600 - 5.95 microns
• Pentax 645D - 5.9 microns
• Pentax 645Z - 5.3 microns
• Nikon D800/e - 4.88 microns
• Pentax K5/II/IIs/30/50/500/-01/Nikon D7000 - 4.75 microns
• Canon 6D - 4.3 microns
• Pentax K3 - 3.9 microns
• Pentax Q - 1.5 microns

The D800/D7000 each has pixels that are similarly sized and it too has also been very successful - with double the sensor area. Pentax's 645 bodies with the substantially larger sensor size are able to sport an even larger pixel size while having higher resolutions. I think that this pixel size essentially is pretty representative of the optimal applied technology available today. As time passes, and additional technological developments and innovative approaches are applied, I would have to think that a new sweet spot will emerge. However, over the last few years now - this pixel size does appear to have excellent dynamic range with good noise rejection - thereby enabling both good low ISO and high ISO ranges - which produces excellent image quality.

I firmly believe that more can be done with this sized sensor (along with its low noise characteristics) - which would entail a full reuse the engineering design and production facilities that Pentax has already invested in. By reusing and reapplying this already sunk costs with some creating thinking and innovative approaches. It should also have the potential of producing some out sized profits.

For instance, what the industry has done to date is to continually shrink the pixel size in order to add pixels and increase the "resolution". However, you can use the technology Pentax has - shifting the sensor's position, to effectively reuse the same pixels - without reducing their physical size, to add resolution.

Pentax is looking for ways to differentiate themselves - well they already have the technology - just apply it slightly differently - all via software. Photographers are told to work the location for all the viewing angles. Well, engineers need to work the technology they already have - through some ingenious application of the current technology.

[lightbulb]

I love 16mp. What we need to see is better video and wifi implementation. This is where the train is heading like it or not.

[RuiC]

30 Mpx of what? Kodachrome 64 was an excellent slide film, According to the Kodak spec sheet its maximum resolution is only about 85 lp/mm @ 10% contrast.



You can drum scan up to 8000 dpi from a 35mm Kodacolor 400 negative from a throwaway camera and generate an impressive number of pixels of pure junk in the process. There is no such thing as a Megapixel equivalent for film.*


Steve

* Though it is fun to calculate what it might be. I screwed up the calculation a couple of times, but at 50% contrast (for equivalence) it comes out to about 7 Megapixels.

Just quoting !!! My knowledge is not that broad enough to argue anything !!!

[Rondec]

Very interesting notes! You could also use an ND filter..

Sure. You could use an ND filter on both cameras for that matter. It is just that many quote the DXO Mark landscape dynamic range of 14.1 for the K5 IIs and 13.4 for the K3 and act like this is a major difference. It is some difference, but it isn't huge in the real world and if you have such a large range that one camera will struggle, the other one probably will too and you will have to use a graduated ND filter or multiple exposures to capture the dynamic range you see.

[kh1234567890]

However, over the last few years now - this pixel size does appear to have excellent dynamic range with good noise rejection - thereby enabling both good low ISO and high ISO ranges - which produces excellent image quality.

Making the actual CMOS sensor sites bigger does not necessarily make things better - you may capture more photons per site, but the site capacitance will be higher and hence the voltage which this gets charged to by those photons is smaller. And it is this voltage that the readout circuitry senses.

[normhead]

Making the actual CMOS sensor sites bigger does not necessarily make things better - you may capture more photons per site, but the site capacitance will be higher and hence the voltage which this gets charged to by those photons is smaller. And it is this voltage that the readout circuitry senses.

When I use my 12 watt solar panel instead of my 6 watt, my batteries charge faster, more surface area means more current. That's the only thing I can relate that to. A bigger panel gives me more power and starts producing useable power with less light. So what's the capacitance?