Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-02-2014, 06:09 AM - 1 Like   #76
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,219
I guess the thing I would add is if you want to print really big, you are probably better doing multiple photos with a little longer focal length and stitching. In this way, you can easily achieve better resolution than even with medium format cameras. It really isn't that difficult.

10-02-2014, 06:25 AM - 1 Like   #77
Pentaxian
tromboads's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Melbs
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,148
In regards to the thread title.

Yes.

/end thread.
10-02-2014, 06:25 AM   #78
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
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.

Well this is important. Since I do realize that the K-3 does bring a nice image quality and sharp images, but isn't the next step starting from K-01/K-5 but a sideways step. If it was delivering a new standard for IQ then I probably would be jumping around. I did one womens soccer game at a dark pitch and used the K-5, since the K-3 isn't to pretty when handling at iso6400 and even then a little underexposed.
10-02-2014, 07:11 AM   #79
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,976
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Since I do realize that the K-3 does bring a nice image quality and sharp images, but isn't the next step starting from K-01/K-5 but a sideways step.
That's my position. Going from the K-5 to the K-3, in terms of image quality, is a lateral move. With the K-3 you get a bit more detail, but also a bit more noise and a bit less dynamic range. In terms of practical output, it's mostly insignificant --- except that the K-3 files are 50% larger! If I'm going to deal with the hassle of 50% larger files, I was something better than most insignificant!

10-02-2014, 08:07 AM   #80
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,824
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
That's my position. Going from the K-5 to the K-3, in terms of image quality, is a lateral move. With the K-3 you get a bit more detail, but also a bit more noise and a bit less dynamic range. In terms of practical output, it's mostly insignificant --- except that the K-3 files are 50% larger! If I'm going to deal with the hassle of 50% larger files, I was something better than most insignificant!
Having gone for the 27 iMac with i& processor 4 years ago, I'm happy to report that I notice very little difference with the larger files. IF I learned one thing researching this computer it's at least from Apple. the cheapest way to buy computing power is to buy their high end machines. At this point I've had 4 years of excellent image processing use and it's still going strong. I could have bought a machine at half the price...and wouldn't be in the position I am now, where I look at what's available and can see no reason to upgrade.

It's funny how folks talk about MP, part of a camera, without consideration of output, how you're going to look at the pictures.

The only valid question here is "what does my output require?" It's incredible how many dodge this issue. I suspect because for 99% of us, our output doesn't require 12mp.

To me, when discussing "is 16 MP enough?" the answer would be, 99.999% of the time, it's more than enough. 12 MP is more than enough. That's 4000x3000 pixels. At 150 dpi that's enough for a 26 inch print. Most of us never print a 26x20 inch print. It's also good enough for a 30 inch canvas, which again, most of us never print.

16 MP is huge. People who say different are the ones who say they prefer a 300 dpi print to a 150 dpi print. But those people can't tell the difference between the two from a normal viewing distance. So you have to be really careful of the agenda being pushed along with the "need" for more DPI. It is an agenda that has nothing to do with viewing pleasure, and everything to do with being able to achieve intellectual satisfaction through the mental concept of overkill. Feeling safe because your technical specs have so far exceeded what's needed that you feel confident. It's a false confidence. The excellence of an image can be immediately understood by other people. The technical overkill that may have been applied to achieve that image is apparent only to the person who paid the big bucks to achieve that overkill. It may give them a sense of personal satisfaction knowing they achieved the highest possible technical resolution, but it's lost on everyone else.

As long as minimum standards for excellence are met, everyone else could care less. I've seen no evidence that anything over 150 dpi isn't completely excellent for large size prints. Or that you need more than 12 MP for most images. And I know pros still shooting with 12 MP FFs who say the same thing. They simply need no more than 12 MP. 16 is overkill. 36 is mind numbing overkill.

Last edited by normhead; 10-02-2014 at 09:24 AM.
10-02-2014, 11:41 AM   #81
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,406
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
People who say different are the ones who say they prefer a 300 dpi print to a 150 dpi print.
Or are required by idiot editors to provide 300 dpi photos.
10-02-2014, 12:19 PM   #82
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
They simply need no more than 12 MP. 16 is overkill. 36 is mind numbing overkill.
QuoteOriginally posted by dadipentak Quote
Or are required by idiot editors to provide 300 dpi photos.
The fun part in this is that some of those idiot's are working (or where hired) for Ricoh Imaging. In the graphic video to give a tour around the 645Z it states that it can deliver output to make 300dpi prints up to 70 cm!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, the Nikon Coolpix P80 from 2008 delivered prints at that size. That would be the main reason to buy a 7.999 euro camera.
10-02-2014, 03:34 PM   #83
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,475
My own feeling that 16MP is enough is why I've not bothered buying a K3 yet, although it's tempting. The only reason it's tempting is not because of resolution but because it sounds like the handling might be slightly better for my needs and more importantly its focus characteristics.

But, The K5 makes me happy in the dynamic range/noise department and resolution.

Interestingly, I was quite happy with the K10d prior to the K5. However, I recognized its limits in darker conditions. But as was just stated a few posts back, 99% of my needs are satisfied at lower resolutions. Almost all my photos get scaled to 6MP. Only the rare gem that I want printed at 8x10 or larger gets to be over 10MP. Any prints larger than that, and I easily give up the dpi.

Also funny is that to my own eyes, the image on screen always looks a little worse than it does on print. The size of the pixels in print are so much smaller than they are on screen that perceived lack of sharpness on screen can be perfect if not spectacular on paper or canvas.


The one thing I keep wondering is if it is really worth upgrading to the K5ii series if one's already happy with the K5. I may just wait for the K3 to hit rock bottom for its focus improvements, or perhaps Pentax/Ricoh will come up with a camera similar to the K3 at a lower resolution. I think they've done things like that in the past, and I supposed the K50 may be there. I just sometimes worry that I'm giving up too much to go from a K5 to a K50.

10-03-2014, 01:52 PM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 508
I have no issues in the 12-16MP range. Almost everything I have becomes scaled down and/or cropped anyways.

20-24 I wouldn't have any real issue with (start to need to get more storage).

At the higher resolutions, I'm wondering if the sensors will bring out any (more) imperfections in the lenses.
10-03-2014, 02:26 PM   #85
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,593
With a 4K display all you can display is 8-9MP (depending on which 4K standard you use)... I can look at photos on my puny 1080p 40" TV (so they are downsampled to about 2MP) and they look fine, even that big.
Massive cropping power even with a 6MP camera, and I reckon I can print wall-sized posters from some of my best K-01 pictures...
10-03-2014, 02:29 PM   #86
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
With a 4K display all you can display is 8-9MP (depending on which 4K standard you use)... I can look at photos on my puny 1080p 40" TV (so they are downsampled to about 2MP) and they look fine, even that big.
Massive cropping power even with a 6MP camera, and I reckon I can print wall-sized posters from some of my best K-01 pictures...
Maybe time to upgrade then?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/7/6119067/dell-insane-ultrasharp-27-ultra-hd-5k-monitor-announced

5k monitor with 5,120 x 2,880 display.
10-03-2014, 02:56 PM   #87
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,593
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Maybe time to upgrade then?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/7/6119067/dell-insane-ultrasharp-27-ultra-hd-5k-monitor-announced

5k monitor with 5,120 x 2,880 display.
It is still not able to display a full 16MP image, as 5,120 * 2,880 = 14,745,600...
So yes, 16MP is and will be enough for quite some time...
10-03-2014, 04:02 PM - 1 Like   #88
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: carpentersville, IL
Posts: 693
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

As long as minimum standards for excellence are met, everyone else could care less. I've seen no evidence that anything over 150 dpi isn't completely excellent for large size prints. Or that you need more than 12 MP for most images. And I know pros still shooting with 12 MP FFs who say the same thing. They simply need no more than 12 MP. 16 is overkill. 36 is mind numbing overkill.

It's easier to make photographs out of snapshots with 36 megapickles.
10-03-2014, 07:14 PM   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,553
QuoteOriginally posted by dave sz Quote
It's easier to make photographs out of snapshots with 36 megapickles.
Even easier to make the photograph in the first place.

I know I picked up good habits trying to squeak the most performance of 6mp for so many years, I've no plans to abandon these habits now that I have more cropping room from 16mp.
10-04-2014, 01:55 AM   #90
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,593
QuoteOriginally posted by dave sz Quote
It's easier to make photographs out of snapshots with 36 megapickles.
...they should taste good, no doubt!
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 03:17 AM. | 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