Originally posted by P. Soo Hi Vitalii. Thanks for your valuable comments. I said before that I don't print photos larger than 10x8 inches, but I often crop very heavily. I might take a photo of a bunch of flowers and crop to a single flower. It's then that I see a loss of sharpness with the Kx which troubles me. I hope that the K50 will show better IQ than the Kx under these severe cropping conditions.
actually I am quite inexpirienced in cropping and printing cropped photos.
But iīve tried to compare k-x with a k-3 in macro. What iīve expected to see was increas in detail and sharpness. The reality looked very different - pictures were almost the same. Actually there was very little increas in detail, and no in sharpness. The smallest detail on the k-x was 2-3px large, compared to the k-3īs 4-5pixels. so the smallest detail, wasnīt getting any smaller it just grew up in size by 2. And on the crop the k-x looked a bit scharper, because the local contrast between each pixel was bigger - on the k-3 it was much smoother.
I think that the weak spot of my comparison was the lense. I`ve used reversed FA50mm 1.4, then same thing with macro tubes, old m42 90mm Macro lense, and some Schneider kreuznach enlargers - nothing new with HD coating, then probably the result would be a bit different.
I really donīt know if you will have a real advantage by having a bit more pixels on hard cropped photo. the only thing that will solve that one is, not to crop and schoot consciously.
and one more thing on an oldk20D you are getting 23mb raw files and that with just 10MP. Professional cameras just have their way to gather much more information.