[Nicolas06]

We tend to think of photographic things as doubling or halving being one stop. So when you think of going from A2 to A1 as being one paper stop, you realize 20% is a lot less than the 100% increase you'd need to maintain lw/ph ratios. But what lw/ph you need to make good prints has always been open to debate as well. These debates are endless circles.

Going from A2 to A1, there 100% increase in surface but only 41% increase in lw/hp ratio. (square root of 2) To continue on the analogy, from pixel count alone, 24vs16MP would be 0.5stop and 22% increase in lw/ph ratio (square root of 1.5).

But this is versus K5-IIs. Versus K5 or K5-II, you need to factor also the low pass filter removal. I don't remember where but on some tests charts you could get something arround 10% increase in practice. (while the 22% are purely theoretical).

We should be in the order of magniture of 30-35% lw/ph increase total from K5 to K3. That's 0.7-0.8 EV and so get you almost from A2 to A1. This also get you to D600 resolution levels.

I do not want to argue on the numbers infinitely, but I continously see the difference in resolution on K3 vs K5, it is there, really visible. As if it is usefull, it highly depend of what you do with your pictures.

Without cropping and for web usage one doesn't need 24MP for sure.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-06-2014 at 10:51 AM.

[Nicolas06]

As maybe a more general view, Ron asked as if 16MP is good enough now but also if it will fit in the future. To be fast today I'd say yes, if you are not doing so much cropping it is enough. 24MP give more comfort and is usefull but is not necessary. You are already safe with 10MP if you limit reframing to adapt the aspect ratio. This is also more than enough to print A4.

For the future, with the arrival of more and more common screen of 5-8MP and counting that 100% crop are never 100% perfect, I'd think that 16MP will be the minimum to target and 24-36MP will be to have some margin for reframing. This also give you enough room for the occasionnal big print.

[RonHendriks1966]

Just read this article from Thom Hogan. Well an industrie that is not knowing where to go and doesn't understand that upping the megapixels is something the mainstream is waiting for.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html

[dadipentak]

Thom Hogan

I think he's pretty much on target.

[Nicolas06]

I monstly agree with the guy, we had no innovation and so there no big reason for anybody to buy a new camera.

I still think that by keeping with traditionnal releasing they could get some sales back with really improved high isos sensor (1EV at least, 2EV better). That would be an argument for many people to buy something new.

For the rest, I think the next evolutions in camera is to be able to provide something like apple is doing with their product. A perfect finish with good a good set innovations (bigger back LCD screen, articulated of course, for one time a fast and very high res EVF). And then many direct buttons on the camera body to control much more thing easily. The software has to be rethink and redone so you do everything in a breeze.

Some ideas:
- EVF with at least the basic: exposure control, real apperture, focus peaking, recall of differents parameters (focal lens, apperture, speed, exposure). Recall the focus distance and the deph of field. The EVF screen has to be huge, very sharp and without latency.
- Direct access to different formats (like 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 2.35) directly shown in EVF and back screen with a button/wheel.
- A sensor that is actually bigger than the final image with display of the surrounding area as an help for framing. Could be APS-H for APSC or FF for APS-H. or APSC for m4:3.
- Direct support for panoramas & HDR.
- Some real post processing software that can support all the features unique to the camera but also does the standard job very well.
- Connectivity with your phone/tablet (Android, ios) and also computer. With full control support from the phone out of the box and facilities to send pictures to different specialized websites (facebook, instagram, flickr and so own). Include a new far better sharing photo website of the brand that is even easier and more featured and supported natively. Include building of books and asking for prints natively.
- Support for displaying photos in all TV, screen, if possible by wifi. Controlled either by the camera or the phone.
- A set of small high quality lenses to cover most need easily, maybe even with reduced image circle for long tele if that can help keep the tele small... Another set of of lens could be the ultimate of eveything but this doesn't contribute honestly to the overall experience of having a delightfull camera that does everything and stay small.
- Big, fat rear screen that is a tactile one of very high quality... This doesn't replace the button but help on some actions like sending photos, setting the focus point while on a tripod, navigating in the camera software. The LCD is articulated, of course and very bright so you can use it in all kind of situations.
- The basic kit has to stay small, maybe with a 2 lens kit like an f/4 transtandard and an f/3.5-f/5.6 tele with some 1:2 macro capabilities and both of very good sharpness. One could be against the average apperture that keep the lens small, but if it come with a sensor with 1-2EV more of high isos, that should be perfect. Other lens can be provided like a few primes. For the guys that want the ultimate FF or equivalent crap, another big/fat model with all features could come after and cover that.
- Included flash can act as the cobra flash instead of just poping.
- A new brand, independant of everything so having a different mount, a different product and not the ultimate crap of appertures and huge lens is not a problem but a feature. That also justification to rebuy everything.

[redcat]

Oh my god, I never expect someone to complain about more Mpx I personally love cropping photo to have better composition and more Mpx means more details ! Big fat files are not at all a problem to me, even RAW files from 645Z are fine. If you have problem with RAM, CPU I'd suggest buying a new computer rather than decrease Mpx on the camera )))

[LensBeginner]

I monstly agree with the guy, we had no innovation and so there no big reason for anybody to buy a new camera.

Well... If I had a very old camera, or if I had a compact and wanted to start a DSLR system, or if I had no camera at all...

That also justification to rebuy everything.

...are you that eager to part with your money?

[emalvick]

Interesting discussion here. I watch closely because I consider buying a K3 or K5iis, and I am one of those that isn't sure whether I need the extra pixels or whether I would notice the improvement. I know I might notice improved sharpness from my current K5 with either camera. But is it worth it to me... For one I shoot handheld. Based on that alone, I'm not sure I'll notice much.

Although, with regard to that I upgraded from a K10d to K5 years ago, and I did notice an improvement there. It may have been subtle, but it was definitely an improvement. However, I think image quality improvements also tie into noise, and the K5 did improve the noise significantly from the K10d.

On a side note, when I purchased the 18-135 a couple of years ago, the intent was for my wife to use the K10d with that lens. Initially, I was using the lens with the K5, and I was quite impressed with it. It wasn't as good as my 17-50, but it sure was better than the kit lens I had from the K10d ever could do. When I moved the 18-135 over to the K10d, I found the results almost appalling. The images were quite soft, and it did not appear to be do to any front/rear focus problems. I hadn't used the K10d in about 6 months at that point, so I had even thought perhaps the K10d was malfunctioning. I cleaned it up, all to no avail with the 18-135. I then went and put the 17-50, which I had used in the past almost exclusively with that camera, and everything was as perfect as it ever had been with the K10d.

The conclusion I had was that the K10d just didn't work well with MY copy of the 18-135 (I think others have had better luck). It's enough to make me suspect and believe that a K3 could and probably should end up with sharper images. But, would the improvement be as big as what I saw going from a K10d to K5?

Ultimately, if I purchase a K3, it won't be because of resolution. It will be because of other features, specifically the autofocus improvements. But, I suspect the K5ii improvements in that department will be adequate as well. We'll see. Right now, I'm mostly seeing how the cost goes with these cameras. I would love a K3 with 16 MP. I doubt it will happen.

[normhead]

When I went from a K-20D to a K-5 it was like I was using different technology. I had it for two weeks, and my wife who was shooting a K-x at the time stole it from me. She borrowed it for a day and I never got it back. When Christmas time came around I got my own K-5. She said, "You should have just used mine." Notice the words "mine" it was already I would be using "hers." We would come home from shoots and we be looking at sunset picture and she'd feel guilty because the extra Dynamic Range, low light performance and rescued shadows were so pronounced. I had to get a k-5 for myself just to keep her from feeling guilty. ( That's my story and I'm sticking to it.) That is not happening with my K-3.

There are small things I like about my K-3, I wouldn't take it back, if I needed money I'd sell lenses before I'd sell the K-3, but in terms of IQ it's better, but nothing like K20D to K-5.

Here the thing about the K-5 to K-3. I bought the K-3 to give myself more crop room than I have on a K-5. But if i were take the cropped image from the K-3 and take the same image with thighter framing with my zoom on the K-5. the K-5 image would be better. To get the advantage of the K-3 you have to frame just as tight as you'd frame on a K-5 and use the whole image. And then you get a roughly equivalent but slightly better image in terms of detail, and a roughly equivalent but slightly worse mage in terms of Dynamic Range. So comparisons are pretty much a saw off.

[Nicolas06]

Here the thing about the K-5 to K-3. I bought the K-3 to give myself more crop room than I have on a K-5. But if i were take the cropped image from the K-3 and take the same image with thighter framing with my zoom on the K-5. the K-5 image would be better. To get the advantage of the K-3 you have to frame just as tight as you'd frame on a K-5 and use the whole image. And then you get a roughly equivalent but slightly better image in terms of detail, and a roughly equivalent but slightly worse mage in terms of Dynamic Range. So comparisons are pretty much a saw off.

I agree with that, the problem is if you need to crop the same amount on the K5 and on the K3... Because I mean my problem is not that 16MP of K5 is not enough to print it and look at it full screen. I think we can all agree K5 more than enough.

The problem is more if you want to reframe/crop for whatever reason and the crop start to be a little aggressive, on the K3 you have more room than on the K5. There no reason to think that if one use the K5 his needs for crop will disapear completely. For me this will mean more boring manual stiching of panoramas and a few shoot that need heavy cropping will be kept if taken by K3 as having a sufficiant sharpness while they would have been considered unusable and sent to trash if taken with K5(*).

This case is not the most common case, but still it happen. I would add that when you really take the time to take your photos in a place near to your home, you take the time, you can go back try again and so own. I remember perfectly thoses occasion where I even take the trippod and I at the begining of a few hours shooting session. But when on a trip, when with friends or familly, you may want to have good photos but still limit the time spent there. Having more cropping possibilities help a lot here. At least for me.

(*) There in fact more need to crop on K5 than K3 for me. On K5 I consider that only the center AF to be really good (well not in low light). The other AF point represent too large areas and this mean you are much more likely to misfocus than on K3. One possibility is to use center AF point and to not reframe if the deph of field is too small to allow that... But then that mean you need a wider lense and to reframe in post production.

[kh1234567890]

Words, words and more words ....

[normhead]

IN this particular case, it would take hours to go back and find the images to illustrate the points made, with no guarantee they're even still on my hard drive. I always try and provide images but in this case, that's asking a lot. Sometimes it's not one or two images but impressions gained over a period of time that form your opinions. But, I'll see what I can do.

[RonHendriks1966]

Words, words and more words ....

Well I never compared them. I got great images from (K-01) K-5, K-5 II (not so much, since I didn't use it that much) and K-3. I did large prints from K-01, K-5, K-5 II and K-3. The largest from K-01, 59 inch, but up to 44 inch on K-3 and K-5. Not images to compare, since some studiowork and others sportsimages with iso up to 6400.

[Nicolas06]

IN this particular case, it would take hours to go back and find the images to illustrate the points made, with no guarantee they're even still on my hard drive. I always try and provide images but in this case, that's asking a lot. Sometimes it's not one or two images but impressions gained over a period of time that form your opinions. But, I'll see what I can do.

If you take the effort to look back to the example I provided (even they are at 6400 isos) it is clear the K3 has much more sharpness available than K5 familly

Both shoot at 6400 isos, f/5.6 on sigma 70 macro. The K3 shoot are downsized to 16MP and only after cropped so image of same size.

K50 shoot:



K3 shoot, reduced to 16MP, then:



I think everybody can see the difference in sharpness. The only remaining argument I can remember that was given is this is not something you can get handled, and so this is not that usefull in many conditions.

[Nicolas06]

An example of K3 shoot

FA77, ISO 100, f/3.2, 1/3200s, handled of course:



100% Crop: