So is 16 megapixel enough?

Winder · 10-01-2014, 06:14 AM

I have been very happy with the 24MP sensor. I was worried about noise, but the higher resolution sensor produces a finer grained noise than the K-5 and noise is actually less of an issue. The 24MP sensor without an AA filter produces crisper prints without moire.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-01-2014, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by p38arover

Ron, I've seen your pix and they just ain't good enough. You need a 645Z!

Well I would like one. But for my average work?

How about you?

stevebrot · 10-01-2014, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Stavri

Hmm....an option to downsize your Raw files in camera from 36-24-16-10mp etc, Great Idea

Now that would be a trick. The size reduction mentioned for the K-7 is the same size reduction also available on the K-3, in-camera downsize for RAW conversion to JPEG. That is the problem with RAW. The files contain the minimally-processed sensor output.

Steve

RonHendriks1966 · 10-01-2014, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by mee

I shoot 50-100 MP panoramas.. so if the IQ was still high then YES!

You can always turn down the image size in the features.. I wouldn't have sold the K-3 (if I had one) if I wanted smaller image size for that reason alone.. plus the CPU is faster in the K-3 than in the K-5 models, so reducing image size may increase your burst performance or number of frames in burst..

Well then maybe such a high pixelsensor would be great for your work. The faster CPU is definately a benefit when you would work on 62 megapixel 14-bit RAW. I know the PRIME II is slower then the PRIME III, but I also learned to live with that. Part of the advantage does go away with upping the pixels. So I would have liked the faster processing on 14-bit RAW or having the option for 12-bit RAW on 24 megapixel and get faster work coming out of the K-3.

The 7D Mark II with dual Digic 6 processing makes the PRIME III looking slow I guess.

Tan68 · 10-01-2014, 07:40 AM

Many say they will wait until this or that (computer stuff) catches up and then go with resolution increase. If they want greater resolution and this is desirable strategy, then all of your captured pictures and memories before computer catches up will be lower resolution than what you will, at that point, determined to be nice to have...

If you never want greater resolution, nothing is lost, of course

Maybe it makes sense to explain for video people. The 4k isn't really here. There can be some benefit to capturing 4k now so those recorded moments will be higher resolution when the time comes...

Of course, in the meantime, dealing with larger files and/or downsampling
vs.
Later upsampling.

Which is a better strategy..?

+ It is some similar to the argument to advise people to take RAW pictures just in case they want to edit them later.. Large displays with a lot of resolution (thinking living room and not computer) will be nice ways to display images..

Any opinions on recording only 16MP from the 24MP camera. May seem a waste, but you get the smaller file size for many pictures and have access to greater resolution when you want it. Again, like advising a person to shoot JPG and JPG+RAW for special times to 'future proof' images..

---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 09:49 AM ----------

Originally posted by dadipentak

...for wildlife and allowing me to "compose-by-cropping" for sports. ... I never shoot in bursts.)

So, it can be done. Good. :^)

---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 09:50 AM ----------

Originally posted by LensBeginner

I find 16MP to be the sweet spot...

Hello

---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 09:57 AM ----------

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

... I know one photographer who has the grip attached to his K-5 because he keeps a spare card in it.

I have only a small trailer pulled behind my car.
Never forget the spare key now.

I enjoyed your comments about RAW HDR and whatever else.
There is so much of my camera I do not use...

**Rondec** · 10-01-2014, 08:38 AM

I will just say that the small difference in dynamic range between a K5 and K3 isn't meaningful in real life usage. If you are close to the edge of dynamic range for the K3, you will be close enough with the K5 that you should just go ahead and do multiple exposures. The difference in resolution is visible, but not always.

carrrlangas · 10-01-2014, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I will just say that the small difference in dynamic range between a K5 and K3 isn't meaningful in real life usage. If you are close to the edge of dynamic range for the K3, you will be close enough with the K5 that you should just go ahead and do multiple exposures. The difference in resolution is visible, but not always.

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

RonHendriks1966 · 10-01-2014, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

The difference in resolution is visible, but not always.

This is a good one. The following question to this is: When is it visible?

If I read back about printing and stay on the safe site, so printing at 200 dpi would be a border where you could see a difference. And I don't crop, but just learn how to take an image proparly......

K-01: 4928x3264 means at 200dpi a print of 62,5 x 41,5 cm. Basicly a print at A2 format at 197 dpi (for wich the Canon PRO 1 is the cheapest choice for home printing) wich is larger then many homeprinting done at A3+ printers.

K-3: 6016x4000 means at 200dpi a print of 76,4 x 50,8 cm. A print on A2 would make a 242 dpi print and one format up to A1 would end up with 171 dpi.

Putting does images up for a larger 60x90cm print on aluminum dibond (I made some of those) would mean the difference of 169dpi versus 138dpi in printing and I gues you can see it, but it doesn't make the biggest difference. For smaller sized prints you probably loose the detail to see the difference because also the K-01 would be above the 150dpi printing.

How many do you make those each year?

I made an A0 print from an image made with the K-3 on Photokina at the stand of Epson and that looks absolutely marvelous. Could easily be done at double that size according the guy from Epson (on the EpsonStylus PRO 9900, so 44 x 29,3 inch print wich is 137 dpi).

This one: #smiler

normhead · 10-01-2014, 09:41 AM

According to the guy at Luminous Landscape, printing on an Epson, the native print is 360 DPI, so 180 DPI works great, a 2x enlargement that maintains sharpness etc. - I've never been able to find out for sure, but I suspect native on Canon's is 300 DPI, do 150 DPI should be good. I've done images at 150 DPI (expanded to 300 dpi) that came out great. With my k-3 at 6000x4000 150 dpi - 40 inches x 27 inches.

The only print I've made that I actually thought was soft was a print of an image rescued from the interet that was 72 DPI. Even it was a decent 5x7, you would' say it was razor sharp, but you wouldn't call it too soft either.

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.

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html?...2#.VCwu276d78s

LensBeginner · 10-01-2014, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

K-01: *snip* Basicly a print at A2 format at 917 dpi *snip*

K-3: *snip* A print on A2 would make a 242 dpi print *snip*

Uhm... that doesn't seem right...
Nice portrait, BTW!

**Rondec** · 10-01-2014, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

This is a good one. The following question to this is: When is it visible?

If I read back about printing and stay on the safe site, so printing at 200 dpi would be a border where you could see a difference. And I don't crop, but just learn how to take an image proparly......

K-01: 4928x3264 means at 200dpi a print of 62,5 x 41,5 cm. Basicly a print at A2 format at 917 dpi (for wich the Canon PRO 1 is the cheapest choice for home printing) wich is larger then many homeprinting done at A3+ printers.

K-3: 6016x4000 means at 200dpi a print of 76,4 x 50,8 cm. A print on A2 would make a 242 dpi print and one format up to A1 would end up with 171 dpi.

Putting does images up for a larger 60x90cm print on aluminum dibond (I made some of those) would mean the difference of 169dpi versus 138dpi in printing and I gues you can see it, but it doesn't make the biggest difference. For smaller sized prints you probably loose the detail to see the difference because also the K-01 would be above the 150dpi printing.

How many do you make those each year?

I made an A0 print from an image made with the K-3 on Photokina at the stand of Epson and that looks absolutely marvelous. Could easily be done at double that size according the guy from Epson (on the EpsonStylus PRO 9900, so 44 x 29,3 inch print wich is 137 dpi).

This one: #smiler

I guess I would have said that I notice it most when I crop my images some and then print at a decent size. If you don't crop, you can make a pretty good sized image from a 16 megapixel. I did a bunch of metal prints recently -- 16 by 24 -- and you could see the difference looking closely, between the K5 and K3 images. From a normal viewing distance, it would not have been visible.

It is what it is. With the price of a K3 right now, it would be really tough for me to recommend a K5 II over it, unless somebody has a real aversion to the larger files you get with the K3.

normhead · 10-01-2014, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I guess I would have said that I notice it most when I crop my images some and then print at a decent size. If you don't crop, you can make a pretty good sized image from a 16 megapixel. I did a bunch of metal prints recently -- 16 by 24 -- and you could see the difference looking closely, between the K5 and K3 images. From a normal viewing distance, it would not have been visible.

It is what it is. With the price of a K3 right now, it would be really tough for me to recommend a K5 II over it, unless somebody has a real aversion to the larger files you get with the K3.

Agree with everything, but the crop factor is huge... it's taking me time to learn to leave myself room to crop, I'm so used to cropping tight to make use of the full 16MP. I'm quite happy now knowing I can throw out 4 MP ( 1000 pixels in width) to go to a 4x5 ratio, and still have a 20 MP 4x5 (5000x4000) file that will print to 33 inches and look great.

Na Horuk · 10-01-2014, 10:29 AM

Has anyone mentioned pixel binning? Or like the hacked Canon DSLRs that allow the sensor to set different pixels at different ISO, thus drastically increasing the dynamic range? Functions like this are the only reason that I see why APSC sensors should go over 20MP. It would give the option to lower the MP count and get higher quality (tonal, dynamic range) or use full resolution with "standard" quality. And the photographer could choose which option they want for any photo.
I don't think I need much more than 16MP. Usually its too much. And with bigger MP count, you need more drive space, etc. Too many downsides. It would be nice if Pentax added a lossy compression method for dng (I think Nikon has that, some sort of "raw" that is actually reduced, but has higher quality and allows things that jpeg doesn't)

RonHendriks1966 · 10-01-2014, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

It is what it is. With the price of a K3 right now, it would be really tough for me to recommend a K5 II over it, unless somebody has a real aversion to the larger files you get with the K3.

We don't have such deals overhere. Currently 949 euro for just the K-3 body, so no free stuff and still more expensive.

dave sz · 10-01-2014, 11:17 AM

I never did nor have plans to do very large prints so up until a few weeks ago, even the k100d was good enough for me. Now got a k5 and I'm sure I'll be just fine. Once the FF comes out, I'll jump on the k3 train and be set for years and years.

10-01-2014, 09:20 AM	#53
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rondec The difference in resolution is visible, but not always. This is a good one. The following question to this is: When is it visible? If I read back about printing and stay on the safe site, so printing at 200 dpi would be a border where you could see a difference. And I don't crop, but just learn how to take an image proparly...... K-01: 4928x3264 means at 200dpi a print of 62,5 x 41,5 cm. Basicly a print at A2 format at 197 dpi (for wich the Canon PRO 1 is the cheapest choice for home printing) wich is larger then many homeprinting done at A3+ printers. K-3: 6016x4000 means at 200dpi a print of 76,4 x 50,8 cm. A print on A2 would make a 242 dpi print and one format up to A1 would end up with 171 dpi. Putting does images up for a larger 60x90cm print on aluminum dibond (I made some of those) would mean the difference of 169dpi versus 138dpi in printing and I gues you can see it, but it doesn't make the biggest difference. For smaller sized prints you probably loose the detail to see the difference because also the K-01 would be above the 150dpi printing. How many do you make those each year? I made an A0 print from an image made with the K-3 on Photokina at the stand of Epson and that looks absolutely marvelous. Could easily be done at double that size according the guy from Epson (on the EpsonStylus PRO 9900, so 44 x 29,3 inch print wich is 137 dpi). This one: #smiler Last edited by RonHendriks1966; 10-01-2014 at 11:10 AM.

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 & K-5 II	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

10-01-2014, 06:14 AM	#46
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	I have been very happy with the 24MP sensor. I was worried about noise, but the higher resolution sensor produces a finer grained noise than the K-5 and noise is actually less of an issue. The 24MP sensor without an AA filter produces crisper prints without moire.

10-01-2014, 06:20 AM	#47
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by p38arover Ron, I've seen your pix and they just ain't good enough. You need a 645Z! Well I would like one. But for my average work? How about you?

10-01-2014, 06:23 AM	#48
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Stavri Hmm....an option to downsize your Raw files in camera from 36-24-16-10mp etc, Great Idea Now that would be a trick. The size reduction mentioned for the K-7 is the same size reduction also available on the K-3, in-camera downsize for RAW conversion to JPEG. That is the problem with RAW. The files contain the minimally-processed sensor output. Steve

10-01-2014, 06:25 AM	#49
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by mee I shoot 50-100 MP panoramas.. so if the IQ was still high then YES! You can always turn down the image size in the features.. I wouldn't have sold the K-3 (if I had one) if I wanted smaller image size for that reason alone.. plus the CPU is faster in the K-3 than in the K-5 models, so reducing image size may increase your burst performance or number of frames in burst.. Well then maybe such a high pixelsensor would be great for your work. The faster CPU is definately a benefit when you would work on 62 megapixel 14-bit RAW. I know the PRIME II is slower then the PRIME III, but I also learned to live with that. Part of the advantage does go away with upping the pixels. So I would have liked the faster processing on 14-bit RAW or having the option for 12-bit RAW on 24 megapixel and get faster work coming out of the K-3. The 7D Mark II with dual Digic 6 processing makes the PRIME III looking slow I guess.

10-01-2014, 07:40 AM	#50
Tan68 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 501	Many say they will wait until this or that (computer stuff) catches up and then go with resolution increase. If they want greater resolution and this is desirable strategy, then all of your captured pictures and memories before computer catches up will be lower resolution than what you will, at that point, determined to be nice to have... If you never want greater resolution, nothing is lost, of course Maybe it makes sense to explain for video people. The 4k isn't really here. There can be some benefit to capturing 4k now so those recorded moments will be higher resolution when the time comes... Of course, in the meantime, dealing with larger files and/or downsampling vs. Later upsampling. Which is a better strategy..? + It is some similar to the argument to advise people to take RAW pictures just in case they want to edit them later.. Large displays with a lot of resolution (thinking living room and not computer) will be nice ways to display images.. Any opinions on recording only 16MP from the 24MP camera. May seem a waste, but you get the smaller file size for many pictures and have access to greater resolution when you want it. Again, like advising a person to shoot JPG and JPG+RAW for special times to 'future proof' images.. ---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 09:49 AM ---------- Originally posted by dadipentak ...for wildlife and allowing me to "compose-by-cropping" for sports. ... I never shoot in bursts.) So, it can be done. Good. :^) ---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 09:50 AM ---------- Originally posted by LensBeginner I find 16MP to be the sweet spot... Hello ---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 09:57 AM ---------- Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 ... I know one photographer who has the grip attached to his K-5 because he keeps a spare card in it. I have only a small trailer pulled behind my car. Never forget the spare key now. I enjoyed your comments about RAW HDR and whatever else. There is so much of my camera I do not use...

10-01-2014, 08:38 AM	#51
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I will just say that the small difference in dynamic range between a K5 and K3 isn't meaningful in real life usage. If you are close to the edge of dynamic range for the K3, you will be close enough with the K5 that you should just go ahead and do multiple exposures. The difference in resolution is visible, but not always.

10-01-2014, 09:09 AM	#52
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Originally posted by Rondec I will just say that the small difference in dynamic range between a K5 and K3 isn't meaningful in real life usage. If you are close to the edge of dynamic range for the K3, you will be close enough with the K5 that you should just go ahead and do multiple exposures. The difference in resolution is visible, but not always. Very interesting notes! You could also use an ND filter..

10-01-2014, 09:41 AM	#54
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	According to the guy at Luminous Landscape, printing on an Epson, the native print is 360 DPI, so 180 DPI works great, a 2x enlargement that maintains sharpness etc. - I've never been able to find out for sure, but I suspect native on Canon's is 300 DPI, do 150 DPI should be good. I've done images at 150 DPI (expanded to 300 dpi) that came out great. With my k-3 at 6000x4000 150 dpi - 40 inches x 27 inches. The only print I've made that I actually thought was soft was a print of an image rescued from the interet that was 72 DPI. Even it was a decent 5x7, you would' say it was razor sharp, but you wouldn't call it too soft either. 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. http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html?...2#.VCwu276d78s

10-01-2014, 10:08 AM	#55
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 K-01: snip Basicly a print at A2 format at 917 dpi snip K-3: snip A print on A2 would make a 242 dpi print snip Uhm... that doesn't seem right... Nice portrait, BTW!

10-01-2014, 10:13 AM	#56
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 This is a good one. The following question to this is: When is it visible? If I read back about printing and stay on the safe site, so printing at 200 dpi would be a border where you could see a difference. And I don't crop, but just learn how to take an image proparly...... K-01: 4928x3264 means at 200dpi a print of 62,5 x 41,5 cm. Basicly a print at A2 format at 917 dpi (for wich the Canon PRO 1 is the cheapest choice for home printing) wich is larger then many homeprinting done at A3+ printers. K-3: 6016x4000 means at 200dpi a print of 76,4 x 50,8 cm. A print on A2 would make a 242 dpi print and one format up to A1 would end up with 171 dpi. Putting does images up for a larger 60x90cm print on aluminum dibond (I made some of those) would mean the difference of 169dpi versus 138dpi in printing and I gues you can see it, but it doesn't make the biggest difference. For smaller sized prints you probably loose the detail to see the difference because also the K-01 would be above the 150dpi printing. How many do you make those each year? I made an A0 print from an image made with the K-3 on Photokina at the stand of Epson and that looks absolutely marvelous. Could easily be done at double that size according the guy from Epson (on the EpsonStylus PRO 9900, so 44 x 29,3 inch print wich is 137 dpi). This one: #smiler I guess I would have said that I notice it most when I crop my images some and then print at a decent size. If you don't crop, you can make a pretty good sized image from a 16 megapixel. I did a bunch of metal prints recently -- 16 by 24 -- and you could see the difference looking closely, between the K5 and K3 images. From a normal viewing distance, it would not have been visible. It is what it is. With the price of a K3 right now, it would be really tough for me to recommend a K5 II over it, unless somebody has a real aversion to the larger files you get with the K3.

10-01-2014, 10:20 AM	#57
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec I guess I would have said that I notice it most when I crop my images some and then print at a decent size. If you don't crop, you can make a pretty good sized image from a 16 megapixel. I did a bunch of metal prints recently -- 16 by 24 -- and you could see the difference looking closely, between the K5 and K3 images. From a normal viewing distance, it would not have been visible. It is what it is. With the price of a K3 right now, it would be really tough for me to recommend a K5 II over it, unless somebody has a real aversion to the larger files you get with the K3. Agree with everything, but the crop factor is huge... it's taking me time to learn to leave myself room to crop, I'm so used to cropping tight to make use of the full 16MP. I'm quite happy now knowing I can throw out 4 MP ( 1000 pixels in width) to go to a 4x5 ratio, and still have a 20 MP 4x5 (5000x4000) file that will print to 33 inches and look great.

10-01-2014, 10:29 AM	#58
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Has anyone mentioned pixel binning? Or like the hacked Canon DSLRs that allow the sensor to set different pixels at different ISO, thus drastically increasing the dynamic range? Functions like this are the only reason that I see why APSC sensors should go over 20MP. It would give the option to lower the MP count and get higher quality (tonal, dynamic range) or use full resolution with "standard" quality. And the photographer could choose which option they want for any photo. I don't think I need much more than 16MP. Usually its too much. And with bigger MP count, you need more drive space, etc. Too many downsides. It would be nice if Pentax added a lossy compression method for dng (I think Nikon has that, some sort of "raw" that is actually reduced, but has higher quality and allows things that jpeg doesn't)

10-01-2014, 11:14 AM	#59
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rondec It is what it is. With the price of a K3 right now, it would be really tough for me to recommend a K5 II over it, unless somebody has a real aversion to the larger files you get with the K3. We don't have such deals overhere. Currently 949 euro for just the K-3 body, so no free stuff and still more expensive.

10-01-2014, 11:17 AM	#60
dave sz Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: carpentersville, IL Posts: 693	I never did nor have plans to do very large prints so up until a few weeks ago, even the k100d was good enough for me. Now got a k5 and I'm sure I'll be just fine. Once the FF comes out, I'll jump on the k3 train and be set for years and years.