[stevebrot]

...Or I could simply downsample to a 16 Mpx TIFF from a K-3 image and upsample from the same to the original resolution and post comparison full resolution crops.


Steve

---------- Post added 10-05-14 at 04:47 PM ----------

How would that show anything ? If I had a K-3 body handy I'd be happy to oblige.

It would show what you can't do with 16 Megapixels.

It would be better if you had a K-3 and actually had real world experience in comparing output from the two cameras, but this is the best we can do.


Steve

[normhead]

If I were ever so stupid as to think I can get sharp images without a tripod, I'd give myself a good slap upside the head then bang my head against a wall until I smartened up. One of my photography texts had sample images, at 11x14 you can see hand shake in any hand held image. Maybe SR mitigates that somewhat, but it's not reliable. It might be enough, it might not. WIth longer lenses, more often than not, it's not.

If you're not disciplined enough to use a tripod, don't even speculate that you're taking advantage of the sharpness of your lens. If you want to test hand held images, in a word, you can't. You'll never achieve the same level of motion blur twice on two comparative images.

I'm with Ron, lenses are pass fail. If I'm using the lens, it gives me sharp pixel peepers at 1:1. And almost any modern lens will do that used properly. At least any modern lens over $600 will. If I'm using one and my images aren't sharp, there's another problem. It's hand shake , poor focus, or my lens has been knocked out of alignment. Shooting hand held, if it's not sharp, 9 times out of ten, it's motion blur caused by excessive camera movement, and the other time, my hand movement took the focal point off the part of the image I'd focused on. I see lots of those images on a regular basis when hand holding.

[dadipentak]

people who crop, will burn in hell...

Well, I probably have a ticket to there on account of other sins so I've got nothin' to lose. ;~)

[stevebrot]

I just did a little comparison arithmetic. The K-5 has 27% better sensor resolution than my recently sold K10D. Yes, only 27% more (104 lp/mm vs. 82 lp/mm). How many people here are willing to argue that there is no step up in image quality between those two cameras? And to think, I almost replaced my K10D with a K-5IIs instead of the K-3


Steve

[Nicolas06]

If I were ever so stupid as to think I can get sharp images without a tripod, I'd give myself a good slap upside the head then bang my head against a wall until I smartened up. One of my photography texts had sample images, at 11x14 you can see hand shake in any hand held image. Maybe SR mitigates that somewhat, but it's not reliable. It might be enough, it might not. WIth longer lenses, more often than not, it's not.

If you where ever so stupid to think you could get sharp images without a tripod you could stop hurting your head, and try for yourself and see thoses mythical sharp images taken handled. That what most people do. I mean they don't know it is impossible, so they do it, and get their sharp image, handled. Even when using a K3.

[Skewed]

On my case the K3 give me sharper images. It does so even with medium/low end lens like 18-135 at f/8

Agree 100%. On my K20d the 18-135 produced such weird corners I almost sent it back. But on the K3 it's more than adequate. I've also used the DA 40 Limited on both, and it's hard to discern any difference on well-composed test shots.
Comparing the output of the 40 and an FA f/4 20-35 on the K3 vs. the K-01, it's a virtual tie unless I'm unable to take the time to compose. So for sub-optimal composition, the additional pixels of the K3 are useful for more aggressive PP, especially cropping.
I sometimes carry both the K3 with a wider lens and the K-01 with a longer lens. Those of us who started with film will remember that carrying two bodies was not unusual.

[normhead]

Agree 100%. On my K20d the 18-135 produced such weird corners I almost sent it back. But on the K3 it's more than adequate. I've also used the DA 40 Limited on both, and it's hard to discern any difference on well-composed test shots.
Comparing the output of the 40 and an FA f/4 20-35 on the K3 vs. the K-01, it's a virtual tie unless I'm unable to take the time to compose. So for sub-optimal composition, the additional pixels of the K3 are useful for more aggressive PP, especially cropping.
I sometimes carry both the K3 with a wider lens and the K-01 with a longer lens. Those of us who started with film will remember that carrying two bodies was not unusual.

Funny, I do the opposite, 21ltd on the K-01, and DA*60-250 on the K-3. I bought the K-3 for cropping wildlife and for enlarging macro images.



ON this one I have the Sigma 70 macro on for spring flowers, not much wildlife along that trail.

[Skewed]

Funny, I do the opposite, 21ltd on the K-01, and DA*60-250 on the K-3. I bought the K-3 for cropping wildlife and for enlarging macro images.



ON this one I have the Sigma 70 macro on for spring flowers, not much wildlife along that trail.

My rationale is to shoot wide and crop with the K3, usually in small spaces. For wildlife I use the K3 with the DA 55-300.

[kh1234567890]

...Or I could simply downsample to a 16 Mpx TIFF from a K-3 image and upsample from the same to the original resolution and post comparison full resolution crops.
Steve
---------- Post added 10-05-14 at 04:47 PM ----------

It would show what you can't do with 16 Megapixels.
It would be better if you had a K-3 and actually had real world experience in comparing output from the two cameras, but this is the best we can do.
Steve

That is why I'm asking. Beside being able to crop a bit more or print slightly (20%) bigger I'd like to see the IQ advantage of 16 as opposed to 24 Mpx. As far as I can tell there is very little which can't be accounted for by lens, focus, light, SR efficiency, sensor response, post-processing etc. differences.

---------- Post added 06-10-14 at 01:41 ----------

If I were ever so stupid as to think I can get sharp images without a tripod, I'd give myself a good slap upside the head then bang my head against a wall until I smartened up. One of my photography texts had sample images, at 11x14 you can see hand shake in any hand held image. Maybe SR mitigates that somewhat, but it's not reliable. It might be enough, it might not. WIth longer lenses, more often than not, it's not.

If you're not disciplined enough to use a tripod, don't even speculate that you're taking advantage of the sharpness of your lens.

I beg to differ.

[Skewed]

Funny, I do the opposite, 21ltd on the K-01, and DA*60-250 on the K-3. I bought the K-3 for cropping wildlife and for enlarging macro images.



ON this one I have the Sigma 70 macro on for spring flowers, not much wildlife along that trail.

Normhead,
Nice pic! I'm not as dedicated a photog as you!

[dadipentak]

ON this one

So that's how it's done!

[atilla457]

I'm still learning k3 but I agree not every 24m picture is worth the bits. In my last trip (to Turkey) I ended up w/ 20G of pictures So this is what I do now:
I setup the camera to save the raw file to card #1 and 6m jpg to card #2. I first review the 6m pictures. If I want to process/crop/resize or keep the raw for future I copy the raw file from card #1. Otherwise I discard the raw files.
Most of the time 6m version is good enough for screen, so this method saves me a lot of disk space (2mb file vs 14mb of jpg) and I get to use all the high-tech stuff available on k3

[dtmateojr]

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.

If they built the K5IIs with only 12Mp it would have outperformed the D800 in low light. I think 16Mp is the most I will go with APS-C. 24Mp on APS-C is stupid. Pentax was playing the "me-too" game.

[Dieseler]

If they built the K5IIs with only 12Mp it would have outperformed the D800 in low light. I think 16Mp is the most I will go with APS-C. 24Mp on APS-C is stupid. Pentax was playing the "me-too" game.

If my 12Mpix K-r was weatherproof, I would not have bothered upgrading to a K5iis, since the resolution upgrade has been a 'non-event' to me (I can't see much improvement using my 55-300 lens, maybe with a DA*300 I would).

As I mentioned here, 12Mpix would be enough for me, even in FF.

[RonHendriks1966]

If my 12Mpix K-r was weatherproof, I would not have bothered upgrading to a K5iis, since the resolution upgrade has been a 'non-event' to me (I can't see much improvement using my 55-300 lens, maybe with a DA*300 I would).

As I mentioned here, 12Mpix would be enough for me, even in FF.

But the newer generation 16mp sensor from the K-5 is much better then in the K-r. Also the equal 12-bit RAW from K-01 is much better. Maybe you do need the better lenses to see the difference. I don't think a print on A4 would show much difference.

---------- Post added 06-10-14 at 10:40 ----------

Funny, I do the opposite, 21ltd on the K-01, and DA*60-250 on the K-3. I bought the K-3 for cropping wildlife and for enlarging macro images.



ON this one I have the Sigma 70 macro on for spring flowers, not much wildlife along that trail.

That looks funny. I never go to musquito land myself and now remeber why.