Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-04-2014, 02:10 AM   #91
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,327
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
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.
+1

It is usually the birders who put forward the cropping argument, as they always seem to be trying to snap a sparrow in a dark bush a mile away. With 16 Mp, a good lens, decent software and a RAW image it is usually no problem cropping a portrait orientation shot to a landscape one of the same width and aspect ratio and upscaling it, if needed. That is about as far as I would normally go.

10-04-2014, 02:24 AM   #92
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,187
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
It is usually the birders who put forward the cropping argument
Sports and macro too. I have found that knowing that I have a little more headroom with the K-3, I tend to frame a little more loosely even for landscapes.


Steve
10-04-2014, 03:18 AM   #93
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Sports and macro too. I have found that knowing that I have a little more headroom with the K-3, I tend to frame a little more loosely even for landscapes.


Steve
Well I know some guys (nikon 24 mp) who almost crop all images back to the Olympus OMD-M1 sized sensor............
10-04-2014, 07:59 AM   #94
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
For now I decided to order a second K-01. I guess I can go along with that set for the coming two years till next Photokina.

10-04-2014, 08:05 AM   #95
Site Supporter
Stavri's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: at a Bean & Leaf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,630
I don't know If anyone answered you question yet Ron

Yes, 16 mpx is enough. Have a nice day
10-04-2014, 08:14 AM   #96
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Stavri Quote
Yes, 16 mpx is enough. Have a nice day
Thanks, I was looking for this answer.....

Well it's Always good to just talk about these things and find reasons why one would need 36 megapixel if at all.
10-04-2014, 08:22 AM   #97
Site Supporter
Stavri's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: at a Bean & Leaf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,630
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Thanks, I was looking for this answer.....

Well it's Always good to just talk about these things and find reasons why one would need 36 megapixel if at all.
I like you post Ron, they very informative. You said it yourself (while stealing Heie thunder for his ...(khem) enormous print), when it comes to pixel density a FF 36mp sensor has less than 16mpx APS, which means the new Pentax FF needs 51mpx or more to compete with the K-3 .......... holy moley.

Last edited by Stavri; 10-04-2014 at 08:31 AM.
10-04-2014, 08:30 AM   #98
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Stavri Quote
I like you post Ron, they very informative. You said it yourself (while stealing Heie thunder for his enormous print), when it comes to pixel density a FF 36mp sensor has less than 16mpx APS, which means the new Pentax FF needs 51mpx or more to compete with the K-3 .......... holy moley.
I don't think we will go that route. Walking around with camera's that don't bring fun to just free shooting, since every image is 100+ MB large. But the pixelrace is not yet over, looking at Samsung coming with the 28 megapixels. My feeling is that it is ending very soon.

10-04-2014, 08:33 AM   #99
Site Supporter
Stavri's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: at a Bean & Leaf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,630
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
I don't think we will go that route. Walking around with camera's that don't bring fun to just free shooting, since every image is 100+ MB large. But the pixelrace is not yet over, looking at Samsung coming with the 28 megapixels. My feeling is that it is ending very soon.
Even with the FF, I'd still like the K-3 to hold the edge on crop-factor. It is and can be a great tool for wildlife and birding enthusiasts. (I know you got turned off by the large raw files it produces, just get a beefier desktop to go along with that amazing wide gamut Fujitsu monitor of yours) and get a used K-3 since they're dropping in price, before you buy a second K-01. Besides holding two K01 bodies (especially the yellow ones) will make you look like you're peddling around cheap Chinese toys

Last edited by Stavri; 10-04-2014 at 09:13 AM.
10-04-2014, 08:35 AM   #100
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
I think it really depends on your use. If you're a wildlife shooter I would think you want as much as you can get.

For my wedding work I use mostly 24mp now and I really wish that the camera is 12mp instead. Don't really need all that pixels. My HDD is almost always full before processing pictures now.
10-04-2014, 09:04 AM   #101
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
+1
It is usually the birders who put forward the cropping argument, as they always seem to be trying to snap a sparrow in a dark bush a mile away. .
Yup, that would be me ;~) I'm also guilty of heavily cropping sports shots for the sake of accentuating aesthetic values. With all due respect for 'good habits', I regard this as perfectly valid technique.
10-04-2014, 09:50 AM   #102
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 254
16mp allows for fairly aggressive cropping honestly there isn't a big different between it and 24mp really quite minor overall, not nearly as big a jump as moving from 6mp to 12mp, the more pixels you have to start with the less advantage there is. If files sizes are an issue I'd suggest converting to lossy DNG this gives much small files sizes but the flexibility of raw processing I've tried it extensively and it's near as damn it identical to normal raw files (even pulling them around a lot) a good alternative to jpeg shooting


16mp is enough, but then again 12mp was mostly enough anyway..and if you didn't crop much 6/8mp images give excellent enlargements
10-04-2014, 10:11 AM   #103
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by dadipentak Quote
With all due respect for 'good habits', I regard this as perfectly valid technique.
No offence was intended. I consider 'good habits' to include anything that maximizes your output, and that includes both quality and % of keepers you end up with. What works for you will be different from what works for me. Most of what I do is pretty slow and methodical, and for me not moving the camera a few inches closer to get the framing I want (when I have ample time and magnification to so do) I have to consider lazy, sloppy, and detrimental to the final output for no good reason other than I was rushing.

It's the lazy shooting just 'cuz I can crop in PP that I consider a bad a habit, when there's little to no justification for shooting sloppy (and the necessary disclaimer: everyone is free to decide on what they consider a valid 'justification' and also they are free to ignore my opinion).

My main point though- I've learned to eek out as much performance from 6mp as I can, that's gonna help with how long I consider 16 mp 'enough'.
10-04-2014, 11:17 AM   #104
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
that's gonna help with how long I consider 16 mp 'enough'.
It'll help in any context.
10-04-2014, 01:07 PM   #105
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 419
Depends ... but in general, YES.

I use a wide range of camera gear for my personal and professional photography. Without getting into the obscene number of cameras I currently own and use or the CRAZY number of digital cameras I've owned and used over the last 14 years, I'll just say that 16 megapixels is generally enough for "virtually every" casual photographer's needs and "most" professional needs unless you're blowing up cropped images to insane print sizes and putting them on display where the viewer-to-print distance is a couple of feet or less.

When I first made my transition from film to digital I was shooting with 6-megapixel DSLRs with APS-C sensors, cropping those images for albums and prints, and regularly delivering 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20 prints to my clients. I never had a single client complain about the prints "looking digital" and even now when I look at those images pulled up from my archive hard drives the images hold up very well.

True, back then I rarely used an ISO higher than 400 for any paid job (ISO 800 or 1600 were reserved for absolute emergencies) and I didn't crop 6MP images as heavily as I do 16MP or larger images, but the point is that 16MP is MORE than enough resolution for the overwhelming majority of output types.

I have a Sony RX1 as my take-everywhere-available-light-camera because the full-frame 24MP sensor delivers amazing fine detail even at crazy high ISOs, but even that high ISO advantage is "negligible" when you're talking about printing your work or displaying images online at screen resolution. Honestly, I bought the RX1 more because it was a small camera with a leaf shutter so it is completely silent for candid shooting and it can flash sync at any shutter speed.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The point is that my main camera for work is the K-5 IIs and I still regularly use 16MP and 12MP micro 4/3 cameras when I traveling on assignment (or vacation) and need to pack the smallest bodies and interchangeable lenses possible due to limited space.

At this point in the development of digital camera technology "most of us" should all be more worried about buying cameras and lenses that have the features we want within the price range we can afford and not so worried about megapixels.
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 01:34 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