[Nicolas06]

ay

I hope someone addresses/answers this excellent question.

This is difficult to me, I have some "old" shoot with K5 with high iso. Fewer with K3 (because I didn't have the need as much past year). Both shoots where great.

This winter I may take a few more people shoots, so that may be it... but. I know have my FA77 + K3. This mean I have both possibility for very shallow deph of field on one side and much more accurate AF on the other side. I may have lower isos now and may have overall better in focus image thanks to K3...

Naturally I would not have get the perfect comparison you are after. All I know is that the difference is not that big in practice, and that other factor may have more impact indeed. The lens, AF, my skill level that maybe improved...

[Macario]

...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

what is a huge print, I have had a 1x2 meter print made from a K-7 file. Looked plenty sharp (even from close).
So even with lower mpx you can still make huge prints

[stevebrot]

what is a huge print

Anything bigger than 20Mpx @ 150 dpi. Much depends, of course on your definition of quality and sharpness. In Winter of 2007, I asked the Nikon rep how big an enlargement was possible with the D80 output (10Mpx) and he pointed to a 2m x 3m mural behind him. It was about 10' up on the wall and looked great.


Steve

[Nicolas06]

what is a huge print, I have had a 1x2 meter print made from a K-7 file. Looked plenty sharp (even from close).
So even with lower mpx you can still make huge prints

This would look great from a distance and for close quite good.

Then the same photo but taken instead with say 645Z would appear far better to you from close. You might not be even able to explain why, but you'll prefer it.

[normhead]

This would look great from a distance and for close quite good.

Then the same photo but taken instead with say 645Z would appear far better to you from close. You might not be even able to explain why, but you'll prefer it.

Unfortunately we'd have to take your word for it. I really think it depends on the image and style of the photographer. We've already had one guy compare his k-01 image to a D800 images taken at the same time. And the guy's wife couldn't say which she liked best. She liked some parts of both image better than she liked some parts of the other image. That's an easy thing to say, but a hard thing to prove. It sound logical, but as gar as I can tell so far, it's a wives tale.

[Nicolas06]

Unfortunately we'd have to take your word for it. I really think it depends on the image and style of the photographer. We've already had one guy compare his k-01 image to a D800 images taken at the same time. And the guy's wife couldn't say which she liked best. She liked some parts of both image better than she liked some parts of the other image. That's an easy thing to say, but a hard thing to prove. It sound logical, but as gar as I can tell so far, it's a wives tale.

I get your point ! I know personnally that I prefer visible more detail in general and I remember reading a summary of a study showing that people tend to prefer higher resolution with more detail, even when they can't conciously see the difference (the study was more on prints with more than 300dpi level of details).

For close distance at 1x2m one would have 75dpi, the other 150dpi. I think the sharpness difference and level of detail with 150dpi would show. But for sure only from close distance.

[madhurvyas]

150dpi is good for most purpose of viewing from 1/2meter and far, below that you should use higher dpi, but normally we see large printed posters form a meters distance.

[Nicolas06]

150dpi is good for most purpose of viewing from 1/2meter and far, below that you should use higher dpi, but normally we see large printed posters form a meters distance.

IT was said from close distance too

As to if you see from close distance or not really depend of use case.

When I see an 1.5x2.5m (or something) poster on a bus stop from my car I don't really notice the large pixels. But if I'am the guy at the bus stop (I have been many time) I can really see the ugly huge pixels because I naturally seat near the poster. This for sure doesn't improve the impression I get from the poster.

If there is some ad somewhere that is poster it is very likely I will never want if I have the choice to see it from close distance to better see it. If I go to a gallery looking to photos, I might want to see the photo that interrested me the most to close distance. If something is interresting you take more time looking at it, you discover it from several distance.

If the painting, the photo is not meant to be shown from close distance, that may not be bad at all ... BUT it will not give the nice impression you'd get from a painting/photo with lot of small interresting details you only see from close.

So if I decide to finally buy the photo in large size and put it in a big wall of my house, I'd appreciate that when I look close to it I might see lot of small interresting details. Like if I have a big city landscape overall I can see the human in detail when I close to it and see maybe one guy buying something to a marchant here or maybe see the detail of some window reflection. That's really fun and interresting.

That may not be the purpose of one photo and that's not necessary, but in some case this is really interresting. And from another thread I think for the photos that sell for the highest money, there were incredibly sharp and detailled (scan of big film) and printed in huge size... Apprently I'am not alone in the trip ! Even through I have not the money to buy such huge prints anyway !

[RonHendriks1966]

Unfortunately we'd have to take your word for it. I really think it depends on the image and style of the photographer. We've already had one guy compare his k-01 image to a D800 images taken at the same time. And the guy's wife couldn't say which she liked best. She liked some parts of both image better than she liked some parts of the other image. That's an easy thing to say, but a hard thing to prove. It sound logical, but as gar as I can tell so far, it's a wives tale.

I think this Guy's wife has an afair, and keeps everyday life as easy as possible.

[phoenixvision]

its not all about pixels that's for sure...the low light focusing ability of the k3 alone is worth it for me....way beyond any other Pentax....

[dakight]

It's just a variation of the "does size matter" question. If you're happy with the results then it's all cool. Is 300 horsepower enough, 400, 500, 700? Where does it end? I think there are more important factors than just how many megapixels your latest toy sports. It's not how much you have; it's how you use it.

[normhead]

IT was said from close distance too

As to if you see from close distance or not really depend of use case.

When I see an 1.5x2.5m (or something) poster on a bus stop from my car I don't really notice the large pixels. But if I'am the guy at the bus stop (I have been many time) I can really see the ugly huge pixels because I naturally seat near the poster. This for sure doesn't improve the impression I get from the poster.

If there is some ad somewhere that is poster it is very likely I will never want if I have the choice to see it from close distance to better see it. If I go to a gallery looking to photos, I might want to see the photo that interrested me the most to close distance. If something is interresting you take more time looking at it, you discover it from several distance.

If the painting, the photo is not meant to be shown from close distance, that may not be bad at all ... BUT it will not give the nice impression you'd get from a painting/photo with lot of small interresting details you only see from close.

So if I decide to finally buy the photo in large size and put it in a big wall of my house, I'd appreciate that when I look close to it I might see lot of small interresting details. Like if I have a big city landscape overall I can see the human in detail when I close to it and see maybe one guy buying something to a marchant here or maybe see the detail of some window reflection. That's really fun and interresting.

That may not be the purpose of one photo and that's not necessary, but in some case this is really interresting. And from another thread I think for the photos that sell for the highest money, there were incredibly sharp and detailled (scan of big film) and printed in huge size... Apprently I'am not alone in the trip ! Even through I have not the money to buy such huge prints anyway !

We also had a guy, another photography teacher that found only about 1 student in 10 could tell the difference between 75 dpi print a 100 dpi print and a 150 dpi print... so I'd love to see a study that linked dpi to viewer preference... what ever range i tested. I've just never seen any blind test offer 20 people that showed there in any advantage to even prints over 120 dpi.

[Nicolas06]

We also had a guy, another photography teacher that found only about 1 student in 10 could tell the difference between 75 dpi print a 100 dpi print and a 150 dpi print... so I'd love to see a study that linked dpi to viewer preference... what ever range i tested. I've just never seen any blind test offer 20 people that showed there in any advantage to even prints over 120 dpi.

For screen resolution on tablets going from 131 dpi to 262 dpi was a game changer to me. Everything felt suddenly so sharp. Photo looked a lot better on it and provided I reduced backlight the 262 dpui screen was very comfortable to read from while the 132dpi one was quite straining for the eyes. So for sure I know the difference.

As for prints again I advice against printing text something as low as 75 dpi, most will notice and feel it uncomfortable after some time. That's for text, and the 300dpi thing is really important for it to ensure it comfortable to read for a long time.

On the opposite some of my friends where not really able to notice the difference between the 2 tablet resolution while it just poped to me and each time I felt. So yes it depend a lot of the person and of course viewing distance.

Maybe it linked to my eyes, I have some myopia, not that much, but enough that is very easy for me to focus close distance and see all the details while I usually prefer anyway to see big text for my comfort and have some difficulty to see some detail that are far, far away.

Anyway, one will not remove it sighting capability to be able to conclude there no visible difference after 75dpi while it is obvious to him the higher resolution prints are much better.

[normhead]

For screen resolution on tablets going from 131 dpi to 262 dpi was a game changer to me. Everything felt suddenly so sharp. Photo looked a lot better on it and provided I reduced backlight the 262 dpui screen was very comfortable to read from while the 132dpi one was quite straining for the eyes. So for sure I know the difference.

As for prints again I advice against printing text something as low as 75 dpi, most will notice and feel it uncomfortable after some time. That's for text, and the 300dpi thing is really important for it to ensure it comfortable to read for a long time.

On the opposite some of my friends where not really able to notice the difference between the 2 tablet resolution while it just poped to me and each time I felt. So yes it depend a lot of the person and of course viewing distance.

Maybe it linked to my eyes, I have some myopia, not that much, but enough that is very easy for me to focus close distance and see all the details while I usually prefer anyway to see big text for my comfort and have some difficulty to see some detail that are far, far away.

Anyway, one will not remove it sighting capability to be able to conclude there no visible difference after 75dpi while it is obvious to him the higher resolution prints are much better.

I once printed a picture taken with a low res came to 5x7 at 72 DPI. It was a good picture. I was clearly stretching the limits of acceptability but it was acceptable. and it hung on our wall for quite a while. The thing is, I'd lost the original file and that was all I had. I think sometimes people say things, that will discourage others from trying. So, no, you don't have to have 300 dpi. You don't even have to have 150 dpi. If you have an image you like and it's over 120 dpi, give it a try, you may like it. I'd have a lot more sympathy with the high res guys, if their approach wasn't "my stuff is better than yours because I use a better camera." Now the guy who said that, said it with a smirk on his face, but, he believed it, until he compare my output with his output. He hasn't said it again since.

[simon6z]

To me is more than enough since my computer monitor does not see that clear so unless there is a 8k monitor I be happy to keep 16mp though