So is 16 megapixel enough?

Nicolas06 · 11-01-2014, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by normhead

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.

That for sure, at the begining we had an 1mx2m shoot example and I would say with 14MP it would perfectly fine if you don't go close to see details. For close details the 75dpi you get are a little limiting and for sure with more I'll see the difference.

It doesn't means it is bad or you should not try. There a big difference between a "you can't see the difference looking closely to it" and "the quality is too low". That's maybe this kind of scale that we miss here.

From the printing industry we know 300dpi is already near perfect and the standard. This allow K-7 or K-5 to print up to A3 with near perfect quality... With the removal of low pass filter you would get the same out of K3, provided the lens follow with an A2 shoot.

Still, the 75dpi real resolution would be already nice and I'll be with you: try it. It might bring you to 1mx2m for a K-7 and 1.5x3m for a K3 or 4mx3m for a D800. Beware through the lens and shooting condition may get you more something that is more like 20-30 real dpi than the theoretical 75 if you shoot is not perfect from the begining.

Anyway, try it, you might be surprised positively !

carrrlangas · 11-10-2014, 04:34 AM

Sorry for the late comeback, I got really busy with my upcoming trip.

I shot the scene bracketing shots using DA70 at f/8 and ISO 100 and ISO 80 respectevely (I did use the same shutter speed for both bodies as I only use half stops shutter speeds)

First on a tripod at lowest ISO and then handheld at lowest ISO and ISO 1600.

Disclaimer: The scene is crappy and all but it has shadows, highlights, blown areas, specular highlights, some foliage, small details, etc...
Focus was achieved through liveview on the blackboard that reads "Cafe con leche + 5 medialunas" on the lower left of the center (behind the other black board). The focus plane is arround 30 meters away so DoF should be good at f/8 without compromising quality due to diffraction too much.
Of course:
- 2sec timer (so MLU on and SR off automatically, thanks Pentax)
- Tripod
- DNG RAW
- 6 bracketed shots from 1/30 to 1/180 in half stops so there´s over and under exposure to play with.

For the handheld attemp, focus was achieved putting the lowest right corner AF point on the same blackboard than before, using AF single mode. SR was engaged and everything else remains the same.

My personal conclusion:
There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two. That said, there´s also no significant difference in noise or dynamic range either. That`s a great thing, since the K-3 does everything the K-5 does and more.
Also, the performance and handling of the K-3 is much better. Haptic feedback is amazing. Liveview is a thing of it´s own.

Here´s the DROPBOX FOLDER with all the RAW files.

kadajawi · 11-10-2014, 05:24 AM

For me 16 MP is more than enough. I was happy with the 6 MP of my *istDS (for the most part), I only upgraded to a K-5 because the *istDS died and I wanted video anyway. That being said, if the MP don't come at the cost of dynamic range and low light performance, I don't mind the extra resolution. Luckily SD cards have become cheap enough, and lossy DNG is pretty good too (a way to reduce the raw files in resolution in Lightroom without losing anything else would be great though). The only problem I have is that it's much harder to get non-shaken photos, despite the SR.

cxdoo · 11-10-2014, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

For me 16 MP is more than enough. I was happy with the 6 MP of my *istDS (for the most part), I only upgraded to a K-5 because the *istDS died and I wanted video anyway. That being said, if the MP don't come at the cost of dynamic range and low light performance, I don't mind the extra resolution. Luckily SD cards have become cheap enough, and lossy DNG is pretty good too (a way to reduce the raw files in resolution in Lightroom without losing anything else would be great though). The only problem I have is that it's much harder to get non-shaken photos, despite the SR.

+1 o that. Frankly, K5II is better camera than what I consider excellent in every department. Maybe slightly lighter body but that also depends on what I mount on it. With Tamron 70-200 weight is fine.

**Mikesul** · 11-10-2014, 05:50 AM

I agree that the lighter body of the K5 series is a plus. I picked up a K5 recently at a crazy good price and was deligted to see how light and compact it seemed next to my K3. I use both cameras a lot and often together to avoid lens changing on desert hikes. It is the perfect combination since I can make use of the strengths of each camera when those differences matter (such as low light autofocus with the K3

RonHendriks1966 · 11-10-2014, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

My personal conclusion:
There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two.

wow and there should be......

kh1234567890 · 11-10-2014, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two. That said, there´s also no significant difference in noise or dynamic range either.

From a quick look in SilkyPix Pro, using sharpening etc. settings that I would normally use that is indeed the case. It does not matter whether you downscale the K-3 one or upscale the K-5iis one - once you'd tweaked the exposure and contrast for them to be the same they look pretty much identical. I would agree though that having the extra twiddly bits of the K-3 is possibly worth it. I won't be dumping my K-5ii yet.

Mr Bassie · 11-10-2014, 03:46 PM

I think 16 mp is enough for the vast majority of photograpers today. I feel no compelling need to upgrade my camera at this time.

GlennG · 11-10-2014, 05:24 PM

To turn the question around, how could 16 mp NOT be enough? The pro Nikon D4s costs $6500 and has 16 mp. A pro level $6500 camera would NOT be hobbled with too few mp's - would it?

kadajawi · 11-10-2014, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by GlennG

To turn the question around, how could 16 mp NOT be enough? The pro Nikon D4s costs $6500 and has 16 mp. A pro level $6500 camera would NOT be hobbled with too few mp's - would it?

Not every pro is the same, has the same needs. The D4s is probably a sports photographers camera? He needs SPEED, but resolution is not so important (the prints won't be large). However the photographer doing photography for billboard ads will not be happy with 16 MP... he'll be looking at a 50 MP medium format camera. Which for the sports photographer would be completely useless... an iPhone would probably be better than the MF camera for his work.

16 MP should usually be plenty though, unless you want to crop a lot.

**Mikesul** · 11-10-2014, 06:21 PM

Am I right in assuming that the main advantage of the 16 megapixels of the K5iis is the greater tolerance for shake and movement when handheld.

**RGlasel** · 11-10-2014, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by kadajawi

However the photographer doing photography for billboard ads will not be happy with 16 MP

Nobody walks up to a billboard and examines the image from 30 cm away. Apply a vivid colour transformation, and your smartphone produces good enough images for billboards.

Most people are uncomfortable getting up close to large prints. Look at the 20x30 posters in stores or even go to an art gallery. If anyone gets up close to a piece of art, it's to look for texture and the little imperfections that come with original works. If the general public wants to see images that fill their entire field of view, they go to an IMAX theatre. The wonder of electronic communication is placing us in a low-res, ephemeral world that only has a shallow resemblance to nature.

Originally posted by kadajawi

16 MP should usually be plenty though, unless you want to crop a lot.

I agree, but with the K-3 the extra resolution was packaged with a camera that is better than the original K-5 in almost every way. The incremental cost of getting higher resolution is minimal and if 24MP results in only a few happier owners or only helps to sell a few extra cameras, it is still worth it to a manufacturer that needs to keep producing new models to remain competitive.

stevebrot · 11-10-2014, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Mikesul

Am I right in assuming that the main advantage of the 16 megapixels of the K5iis is the greater tolerance for shake and movement when handheld.

As I am typing this, I am trying to visualize why this might be the case.

I am also wondering in comparison to what?

Steve

kadajawi · 11-10-2014, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

As I am typing this, I am trying to visualize why this might be the case.

I am also wondering in comparison to what?

Steve

Well, on a 6 MP camera you could shake the camera quite a bit till you notice it. On a 16 MP camera it's less, and on a 24 MP camera even less. Of course only when viewed at 100%, but hey, that's how photos are looked at, right?

@RGlasel: Fair enough... but why do MF cameras have 50 MP these days?

LensBeginner · 11-11-2014, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

Well, on a 6 MP camera you could shake the camera quite a bit till you notice it. On a 16 MP camera it's less, and on a 24 MP camera even less. Of course only when viewed at 100%, but hey, that's how photos are looked at, right?

@RGlasel: Fair enough... but why do MF cameras have 50 MP these days?

I suppose it's in order to do studio birding of a wild hawk (in studio) and then crop the eye... :-|

11-10-2014, 04:34 AM	#287
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Pentax K-3 vs K-5IIs Sorry for the late comeback, I got really busy with my upcoming trip. I shot the scene bracketing shots using DA70 at f/8 and ISO 100 and ISO 80 respectevely (I did use the same shutter speed for both bodies as I only use half stops shutter speeds) First on a tripod at lowest ISO and then handheld at lowest ISO and ISO 1600. Disclaimer: The scene is crappy and all but it has shadows, highlights, blown areas, specular highlights, some foliage, small details, etc... Focus was achieved through liveview on the blackboard that reads "Cafe con leche + 5 medialunas" on the lower left of the center (behind the other black board). The focus plane is arround 30 meters away so DoF should be good at f/8 without compromising quality due to diffraction too much. Of course: - 2sec timer (so MLU on and SR off automatically, thanks Pentax) - Tripod - DNG RAW - 6 bracketed shots from 1/30 to 1/180 in half stops so there´s over and under exposure to play with. For the handheld attemp, focus was achieved putting the lowest right corner AF point on the same blackboard than before, using AF single mode. SR was engaged and everything else remains the same. My personal conclusion: There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two. That said, there´s also no significant difference in noise or dynamic range either. That`s a great thing, since the K-3 does everything the K-5 does and more. Also, the performance and handling of the K-3 is much better. Haptic feedback is amazing. Liveview is a thing of it´s own. Here´s the DROPBOX FOLDER with all the RAW files.

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

11-01-2014, 10:24 AM	#286
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by normhead 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. That for sure, at the begining we had an 1mx2m shoot example and I would say with 14MP it would perfectly fine if you don't go close to see details. For close details the 75dpi you get are a little limiting and for sure with more I'll see the difference. It doesn't means it is bad or you should not try. There a big difference between a "you can't see the difference looking closely to it" and "the quality is too low". That's maybe this kind of scale that we miss here. From the printing industry we know 300dpi is already near perfect and the standard. This allow K-7 or K-5 to print up to A3 with near perfect quality... With the removal of low pass filter you would get the same out of K3, provided the lens follow with an A2 shoot. Still, the 75dpi real resolution would be already nice and I'll be with you: try it. It might bring you to 1mx2m for a K-7 and 1.5x3m for a K3 or 4mx3m for a D800. Beware through the lens and shooting condition may get you more something that is more like 20-30 real dpi than the theoretical 75 if you shoot is not perfect from the begining. Anyway, try it, you might be surprised positively !

11-10-2014, 05:24 AM	#288
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	For me 16 MP is more than enough. I was happy with the 6 MP of my istDS (for the most part), I only upgraded to a K-5 because the istDS died and I wanted video anyway. That being said, if the MP don't come at the cost of dynamic range and low light performance, I don't mind the extra resolution. Luckily SD cards have become cheap enough, and lossy DNG is pretty good too (a way to reduce the raw files in resolution in Lightroom without losing anything else would be great though). The only problem I have is that it's much harder to get non-shaken photos, despite the SR.

11-10-2014, 05:33 AM	#289
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by kadajawi For me 16 MP is more than enough. I was happy with the 6 MP of my istDS (for the most part), I only upgraded to a K-5 because the istDS died and I wanted video anyway. That being said, if the MP don't come at the cost of dynamic range and low light performance, I don't mind the extra resolution. Luckily SD cards have become cheap enough, and lossy DNG is pretty good too (a way to reduce the raw files in resolution in Lightroom without losing anything else would be great though). The only problem I have is that it's much harder to get non-shaken photos, despite the SR. +1 o that. Frankly, K5II is better camera than what I consider excellent in every department. Maybe slightly lighter body but that also depends on what I mount on it. With Tamron 70-200 weight is fine.

11-10-2014, 05:50 AM	#290
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	I agree that the lighter body of the K5 series is a plus. I picked up a K5 recently at a crazy good price and was deligted to see how light and compact it seemed next to my K3. I use both cameras a lot and often together to avoid lens changing on desert hikes. It is the perfect combination since I can make use of the strengths of each camera when those differences matter (such as low light autofocus with the K3

11-10-2014, 08:48 AM	#291
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by carrrlangas My personal conclusion: There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two. wow and there should be......

11-10-2014, 09:59 AM	#292
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by carrrlangas There`s no significant advantage in resolution or resolving power between the two. That said, there´s also no significant difference in noise or dynamic range either. From a quick look in SilkyPix Pro, using sharpening etc. settings that I would normally use that is indeed the case. It does not matter whether you downscale the K-3 one or upscale the K-5iis one - once you'd tweaked the exposure and contrast for them to be the same they look pretty much identical. I would agree though that having the extra twiddly bits of the K-3 is possibly worth it. I won't be dumping my K-5ii yet.

11-10-2014, 03:46 PM	#293
Mr Bassie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,258	I think 16 mp is enough for the vast majority of photograpers today. I feel no compelling need to upgrade my camera at this time.

11-10-2014, 05:24 PM	#294
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	To turn the question around, how could 16 mp NOT be enough? The pro Nikon D4s costs $6500 and has 16 mp. A pro level $6500 camera would NOT be hobbled with too few mp's - would it?

11-10-2014, 05:42 PM	#295
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by GlennG To turn the question around, how could 16 mp NOT be enough? The pro Nikon D4s costs $6500 and has 16 mp. A pro level $6500 camera would NOT be hobbled with too few mp's - would it? Not every pro is the same, has the same needs. The D4s is probably a sports photographers camera? He needs SPEED, but resolution is not so important (the prints won't be large). However the photographer doing photography for billboard ads will not be happy with 16 MP... he'll be looking at a 50 MP medium format camera. Which for the sports photographer would be completely useless... an iPhone would probably be better than the MF camera for his work. 16 MP should usually be plenty though, unless you want to crop a lot.

11-10-2014, 06:21 PM	#296
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Am I right in assuming that the main advantage of the 16 megapixels of the K5iis is the greater tolerance for shake and movement when handheld.

11-10-2014, 06:31 PM	#297
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,229	Originally posted by kadajawi However the photographer doing photography for billboard ads will not be happy with 16 MP Nobody walks up to a billboard and examines the image from 30 cm away. Apply a vivid colour transformation, and your smartphone produces good enough images for billboards. Most people are uncomfortable getting up close to large prints. Look at the 20x30 posters in stores or even go to an art gallery. If anyone gets up close to a piece of art, it's to look for texture and the little imperfections that come with original works. If the general public wants to see images that fill their entire field of view, they go to an IMAX theatre. The wonder of electronic communication is placing us in a low-res, ephemeral world that only has a shallow resemblance to nature. Originally posted by kadajawi 16 MP should usually be plenty though, unless you want to crop a lot. I agree, but with the K-3 the extra resolution was packaged with a camera that is better than the original K-5 in almost every way. The incremental cost of getting higher resolution is minimal and if 24MP results in only a few happier owners or only helps to sell a few extra cameras, it is still worth it to a manufacturer that needs to keep producing new models to remain competitive.

11-10-2014, 08:57 PM	#298
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Mikesul Am I right in assuming that the main advantage of the 16 megapixels of the K5iis is the greater tolerance for shake and movement when handheld. As I am typing this, I am trying to visualize why this might be the case. I am also wondering in comparison to what? Steve

11-10-2014, 10:20 PM	#299
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by stevebrot As I am typing this, I am trying to visualize why this might be the case. I am also wondering in comparison to what? Steve Well, on a 6 MP camera you could shake the camera quite a bit till you notice it. On a 16 MP camera it's less, and on a 24 MP camera even less. Of course only when viewed at 100%, but hey, that's how photos are looked at, right? @RGlasel: Fair enough... but why do MF cameras have 50 MP these days?

11-11-2014, 02:49 AM	#300
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by kadajawi Well, on a 6 MP camera you could shake the camera quite a bit till you notice it. On a 16 MP camera it's less, and on a 24 MP camera even less. Of course only when viewed at 100%, but hey, that's how photos are looked at, right? @RGlasel: Fair enough... but why do MF cameras have 50 MP these days? I suppose it's in order to do studio birding of a wild hawk (in studio) and then crop the eye... :-\|