[RonHendriks1966]

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.

[JinDesu]

Heck, 12MP was enough for me for 3 years. I only have a k-3 because of huge upgrade in features over my k-x/the k-5, but I wished it was 16MP instead of 24.

[grahame]

24mp is one of the reasons that I don't want k3. Larger files are big headache in storing and processing. I am happy with 10-16mp cameras.
for ff camera, I hope pentax can keep the pixel around 24mp, 18 is even better for me but I guess not for many others.

[interested_observer]

Perhaps, I don't know what I am missing with the K3. I do really like the K5's 16mp sensor. I like the ISO 80, the dynamic range along with its image quality. I probably am missing some or a lot of additional resolution that I am leaving on the table. I have one image, that I printed at 20" x 30" that is hanging up in the office and folks comment on the details of the surface of the cobble stones on the pier in the foreground. Maybe, its the one in a thousand images that would not benefit from any additional resolution. I don't know.

I do like a lot of the features of the K3, along with the AA being removed from the K5IIs. I do wish that Pentax would have taken all the additional features (better AF, enhanced WB sensor, image processing, etc.) and coupled them with the 16MP sensor making the K5III or K5IIsx or what ever. I would have preferred that to the K-s1. Oh yea, on that note - I like the K5's body style and layout.

[ivanvernon]

On my K-7, you can go to the menu and reduce the number of pixels. The options are 14, 10, 6, and 2. Shooting at the lower count levels seems to make no discernab le difference when viewing at normal sizes, although certinly is you are going to print out at 16 X 20 inches, you need the additional resolution.

[cxdoo]

24mp is one of the reasons that I don't want k3. Larger files are big headache in storing and processing. I am happy with 10-16mp cameras.
for ff camera, I hope pentax can keep the pixel around 24mp, 18 is even better for me but I guess not for many others.

+1


When CPU+RAM+Disk speed+Lightroom performance catches up with the size of RAW files I have now, at affordable price level, AND screen resolution allows for more than 25% (Ideally 100%) of the actual image at affordable level, I might consider looking at cameras with more than 16 megapickles. As you said, K3 having 24 is a drawback, not a benefit, for me.

[stevebrot]

24mp is one of the reasons that I don't want k3.

...and one of the reasons why I almost did not buy one. In my opinion, the sweet spot for APS-C is in the 16-20 Mpx range unless you truly need to make huge prints.


Steve

[Marktax]

20mpix in K-S1 might end up proving perfect . . .

[savoche]

Heck, 12MP was enough for me for 3 years. I only have a k-3 because of huge upgrade in features over my k-x/the k-5, but I wished it was 16MP instead of 24.

A 16mp K-3 would be a dream. I prefer the dynamic range over the higher resolution. (But as it is I still prefer the K-3 over the K-5 overall.)

[Pablom]

I replaced my K-x for a K-5 and my only problem with it is the huge raw files the extra 4mp add. It's double the size for not much gain and honestly, 12mp are enough for big prints, to my experience even 50cm/75cm.

[Gray]

Is 16 Mp enough? Hell, yes! I get very, very usable 24 inch prints from my K5II. I'm seriously considering the 12 Mp Sony A7s FF for low light work, and my investigations so far show that it's 12 Mp sensor will be fine for large prints too.

[stevebrot]

Is 16 Mp enough? Hell, yes! I get very, very usable 24 inch prints from my K5II. I'm seriously considering the 12 Mp Sony A7s FF for low light work, and my investigations so far show that it's 12 Mp sensor will be fine for large prints too.

A lot depends on the RIP used for upsampling. The working print resolution of high quality commercial photo printers is (industry standard) 300 dpi. For 16x24 that is 4800x7200 pixels or about 35 Megapixels.* Since large prints are generally viewed at a greater distance it is possible to go bigger by upsampling the image to allow a lower nominal dot pitch. The different raster image processors (RIP) vary according to how well this is accomplished without artifact and with retention of original sharpness.

Usually this works quite well. Back in 2007 when before I bought my K10D, I asked the store clerk how big a print could be made from 10 Megapixels. He pointed to a 24x36 poster behind him and said, "That was taken with a Nikon D80, is that good enough?" I said, "yep".


Steve

* Do the math and it is soon clear that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to sensor resolution vs. print size.

[BrianR]

Sure. I'd been happy with 6mp since 2006 until I made the jump to 16mp earlier this year, and the increased resolution wasn't exactly a life altering change (I wasn't expecting it to be). Unless my usage changes dramatically, 16mp should be enough for me for years to come.

[carrrlangas]

I sold my K-3 because I didn't need the pixels

Did you find any problem with bigger files or something or else?
What about the smaller AF points and faster AF motor? The bigger screen? I don`t need 24Mp either but tempted by those upgrades.

[Pioneer]

Most of the time the 6mp from my ist DL2 is enough. If not, the K-01 is more than adequate for high quality 13x19 prints, which is as large as my Canon Pixma can print.

If I decide I want larger (rare) I jump to my 4x5 Crown Graphic and print with the enlarger...or ship it out if it is color.