[kh1234567890]

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.

[stevebrot]

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

[RonHendriks1966]

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............

[RonHendriks1966]

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.

[Stavri]

Yes, 16 mpx is enough. Have a nice day

[RonHendriks1966]

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.

[Stavri]

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.

[RonHendriks1966]

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.

[Stavri]

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

[Andi Lo]

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.

[dadipentak]

+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.

[Mr Spocko]

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

[BrianR]

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'.

[dadipentak]

that's gonna help with how long I consider 16 mp 'enough'.

It'll help in any context.

[JJJPhoto]

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.