Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-23-2015, 08:17 PM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter
narual's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana
Posts: 1,942
Because I want to be forced to archive images from my laptop to my NAS every 3-4 weeks instead of twice a year (actually, probably more often now that I have a K3. It was about twice a year with the K5 and the D5100 which were both 16s)

03-23-2015, 08:24 PM - 4 Likes   #32
Site Supporter
sherrvonne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,888
I know if I need to clean my house if I take a pic inside my house with the K3. Once the photo is viewed on the PC monitor I can see the dog hairs sticking to my baseboards that the ipad photos never showed. All the extra megapixels puts the Swiffer to work.
03-23-2015, 11:30 PM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
On a 12"x12" print from a 5MP camera, you get 3.3MP actual resolution (the rest is cropped to adapt from 3:2 sensor format), this give you theoretical 150dpi print and more like 100dpi in reality because you come from photosites, no real pixels. While raw processing software is good it cannot invent what is not there (the theory would say you'd get only 75dpi of full pixel, but we typically use the fact that image we shoot are not fully random and exploit the way our eyes see).

On a 12"x12" print, you need a theoretically perfect 12MP 3600x3600 shoot to fully exploit 300dpi resolution. The standard for "perfect images". Counting the reframing to square format, that need a 20MP sensor. Counting we don't have real pixels and we may want to have some margin from reframing, 50MP sound reasonable if your target is just a perfect 12"x12" print.

If you want to expose in a galery and use a format that is not that small, you'll find the 50MP easily justified.

That being said, I'am with you that if you don't take photo of very fine contrasty texture (text being an example) and your clients don't stare too much from near distance to your photos, you will likely be enough with 150-200dpi on a 12"x12" print, meaning a 16-24MP camera is going to let you reframe and still get enough resolution.

On larger prints, if you admit that people will not stare in the very front from 20-30cm, you can admit far lower resolution like 50dpi and still get quite pleasing results... So your 16-24MP body is likely to be able to get you very far anyway. No big issue even with 30"x40" if you don't crop.

This is just the 50MP one will look a bit better and offer more margin. I think it will be innexpensive to get soon (the camera), maybe 3-5 years. The question is more what are the optics you'll use on it, and what are the appertures too. An old M50 f/1.7 closed down to f/5.6 is likely to benefit of 50MP in the center, maybe not in corners, not at all at f/2.8. Most lenses would fail if not for center at their optimal apperture. And as soon as you would increase the isos significantly (say past iso800) or that you be in difficult condition (high dynamic range, contra light, overcast day...) you have difficulties to exploit fully thoses 50MP. You'd be able to get the 50MP in optimal conditions on best lenses in 35-135mm range. On long tele and and on wide angle, I would not bet on that. You would need to change to bigger cameras/lenses.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-23-2015 at 11:36 PM.
03-24-2015, 12:28 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,118
One very specific, but very common, application where high resolution is important - group shots. Everyone will be pressing their noses against their prints to find themselves and their aunt.

03-24-2015, 01:16 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
50mp sounds really nice, but if the noise and DR are so bad that 30mp out of those 50 are bad and subject to NR, then it's kinda useless. (I'm exaggerating a bit again...) And the fact that an AA filter is not needed at those pixel densities doesn't impress me at all. My 20mp cellphone camera has no AA filter, still my original K5, with its thick AA filter takes pictures that are many times better.

How nice would it be if Pentax would surprise us with an FF DSLR that uses the super sensitive 12MP Sony sensor that is also used in the A7s? 12 very good megapixels, and still room to crop to the 5mp that are mentioned in the opening post. (Most cameras labelled as "pro" do tend to lean towards lower MP's. 1Dx, D4) It could have blazing fast processing.

I have a lot of large prints on acrylic glass. The largest is 2,2x1,8 meters. The details are amazing, it's like pixel peeping an entire picture all at once. They amaze me and anybody that visits my house. I'm really very fond of them. STILL my 16mp K-5 is enough for that. My 36mp camera gave me a lot of headroom in a lot of areas, but the extra MP's didn't add anything. So, the galleries that some people are referring must be printing some really wicked dimensions to be requiring even more MP's!

Last edited by Clavius; 03-24-2015 at 01:26 AM.
03-24-2015, 01:53 AM   #36
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,612
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
*snip*
(Most cameras labelled as "pro" do tend to lean towards lower MP's. 1Dx, D4)
*snip*
Sports cameras do, studio/landscape cameras don't.
It's mainly in order to have a fast burst & good high-ISO capabilities, but it says nothing for normal-ISO situations.
03-24-2015, 02:28 AM   #37
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Sports cameras do, studio/landscape cameras don't.
It's mainly in order to have a fast burst & good high-ISO capabilities, but it says nothing for normal-ISO situations.
Yes, so imagine a Pentax FF DSLR with that hypersensitive 12mp A7s sensor, wicked processing and improved AF. That would instantly become a very helpful tool for shooters of indoor sports events. A camera with "pro" status that would actually be attainable for Pentax. Or at least more attainable then competing in the me-too high MP superconsumer camera race.

Btw, in my own studio I still don't care for more then my curent 36mp. 36mp is already much more then enough. Especially in the studio, I might add. Because I control each and every aspect of photography there, including the subject. so much less need for cropping as well.

Last edited by Clavius; 03-24-2015 at 02:42 AM.
03-24-2015, 02:37 AM - 1 Like   #38
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,797
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
My 100" x 200" 300dpi kitchen screen wall requires 1.8 GPixel images. Or soon will
Can I borrow it for dust spotting my 10,000 DPI 8X10 format drum scans? - doing that at 100% view on a small 30" monitor is a pain.

03-24-2015, 02:39 AM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,940
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Yes, so imagine a Pentax FF DSLR with that hypersensitive 12mp A7s sensor, wicked processing and improved AF. That would instantly become a very helpful tool for shooters of indoor sports events.
It would be fast, but it would also be low resolution and sub par performance below iso 400. I wouldn't touch it.
03-24-2015, 02:51 AM   #40
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
5 megapixels maybe enough if you view the picture from far away, but sometimes you want to be able to see fine detail:
For example, what are the people doing in this landscape:

You may have missed it, but there are people standing on the rocks, towards the right. It's very obvious on a large print, but at 5 megapixels, they would be just a few pixels across.
I've seen this in the new review of the 40 mp option in the Olympus OMD-E-M5II on DPR. They show you the detail of some chimney or the like in a far distance that is much better to see then on the regular 16mp image. But who really cares? If we wanted an image of that thing, we probably would have taken the image of it. Maybe this is good to see extraterrestial life on earth in those extra pixels?

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
On a 12"x12" print from a 5MP camera, you get 3.3MP actual resolution
On a 12"x12" print, you need a theoretically perfect 12MP 3600x3600 shoot to fully exploit 300dpi resolution. The standard for "perfect images". Counting the reframing to square format, that need a 20MP sensor. Counting we don't have real pixels and we may want to have some margin from reframing, 50MP sound reasonable if your target is just a perfect 12"x12" print.

If you want to expose in a galery and use a format that is not that small, you'll find the 50MP easily justified.

That being said, I'am with you that if you don't take photo of very fine contrasty texture (text being an example) and your clients don't stare too much from near distance to your photos, you will likely be enough with 150-200dpi on a 12"x12" print, meaning a 16-24MP camera is going to let you reframe and still get enough resolution.

On larger prints, if you admit that people will not stare in the very front from 20-30cm, you can admit far lower resolution like 50dpi and still get quite pleasing results... So your 16-24MP body is likely to be able to get you very far anyway. No big issue even with 30"x40" if you don't crop.
I was refurring to use 5 mp on that print, so that would come from an almost 8 mp 3-2 ratio sensor. That is already 189 dpi in print, wich is more then enough (starting from great image quality made in studio at iso100 with K-01).

NOTE, the following link may have NSFW content (I´m not sure how that goes in US, but this is Facebookproof work)
https://www.fotofabriek.nl/preview/?id=79B6B47E9D6AEE06948D3A1169F4A13C


QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
How nice would it be if Pentax would surprise us with an FF DSLR that uses the super sensitive 12MP Sony sensor that is also used in the A7s? 12 very good megapixels, and still room to crop to the 5mp that are mentioned in the opening post. (Most cameras labelled as "pro" do tend to lean towards lower MP's. 1Dx, D4) It could have blazing fast processing.

I have a lot of large prints on acrylic glass. The largest is 2,2x1,8 meters. The details are amazing, it's like pixel peeping an entire picture all at once. They amaze me and anybody that visits my house. I'm really very fond of them. STILL my 16mp K-5 is enough for that. My 36mp camera gave me a lot of headroom in a lot of areas, but the extra MP's didn't add anything. So, the galleries that some people are referring must be printing some really wicked dimensions to be requiring even more MP's!
I have made a print from K-01 at max of 150cm, so that is just 76 DPI in print and that is one fine print. Ofcourse one can get it better, but in printing one can do great things. I made a print at 46 inches at PhotoKina that looks great, one of the images in the book and the people at Epson told me that printing twice the size would be no problem.

Maybe I wouldn´t mind having just 12 mp, but in general anything at or below 24 mp would work fine.
03-24-2015, 03:16 AM   #41
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,334
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
… the fact that an AA filter is not needed at those pixel densities doesn't impress me at all.
The fact that the 5DS has one must be doubly unimpressive, then.
03-24-2015, 03:20 AM   #42
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,256
I think a lot depends on your intended goal. If you shoot wildlife/birds, then it is awfully handy to have a few extra megapixels because you are bound to crop some, maybe a lot, depending on how close you can get. Obviously the second thing is how big you intended to print. Yes, you can print a 5 megapixel image as big as you want, but it is more impressive when there is real detail in the image that comes out with it. I have seen some images on the walls of our local hospital that were portraits of babies and they were printed too big. If you stood close to the image at all, you could see the pixels. Sure, if you stand far enough away, they look OK, but these prints were some 24 inches on a side. Otherwise they were nice images, nicely shot with good exposure, etc.

I do wish that camera companies would have some kind of real binning feature on their cameras, where if you don't want 24 megapixels, for instance, the camera could somehow combine pixels to create a camera with better high iso and dynamic range. Seems like it should be possible, but I don't really understand these sorts of things...
03-24-2015, 03:23 AM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
50mp sounds really nice, but if the noise and DR are so bad that 30mp out of those 50 are bad and subject to NR, then it's kinda useless. (I'm exaggerating a bit again...) And the fact that an AA filter is not needed at those pixel densities doesn't impress me at all. My 20mp cellphone camera has no AA filter, still my original K5, with its thick AA filter takes pictures that are many times better.

How nice would it be if Pentax would surprise us with an FF DSLR that uses the super sensitive 12MP Sony sensor that is also used in the A7s? 12 very good megapixels, and still room to crop to the 5mp that are mentioned in the opening post. (Most cameras labelled as "pro" do tend to lean towards lower MP's. 1Dx, D4) It could have blazing fast processing.

I have a lot of large prints on acrylic glass. The largest is 2,2x1,8 meters. The details are amazing, it's like pixel peeping an entire picture all at once. They amaze me and anybody that visits my house. I'm really very fond of them. STILL my 16mp K-5 is enough for that. My 36mp camera gave me a lot of headroom in a lot of areas, but the extra MP's didn't add anything. So, the galleries that some people are referring must be printing some really wicked dimensions to be requiring even more MP's!
A few things... 24MP on APSC is like 54MP on FF. The 50MP sensor for Canon FF will have similar characteristics has a K3 for per photosite dynamic range/color deph/high iso... But because it will be used on a larger sensor it would still have better dynamic range/color deph/high iso performance at same printing size than a K3 and also a K5.

Speaking of 12MP FF, this is to really gain 1/3EV in high iso in benchmark (see DxO scores) and at the expense of WORSE dynamic range and WORSE color deph. I agree that at very high isos it is less crappy than using another FF sony sensor... So if you mostly shoot pass 12800 on FF this make sense. Be sure to develop all your RAWS with DxO prime as there as much is no more difference by using a better denoising algorithm than there is between a A7R and other FF camera in high iso.

So, all of this make sense only when high iso is critical at the expense of getting low resolution all the time limiting the cropping capability severely.

I would not exchange my K3 and lenses to get Sony A7s + lenses for free. I don't want an inferior product because of the hype of better performance at 12800/25600 isos+ while most of my shoots are <800isos.
03-24-2015, 03:28 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I do wish that camera companies would have some kind of real binning feature on their cameras, where if you don't want 24 megapixels, for instance, the camera could somehow combine pixels to create a camera with better high iso and dynamic range. Seems like it should be possible, but I don't really understand these sorts of things...
You just described the high iso setting of your camera. When you get high iso you loose resolution but when you print low resolution or apply noise reduction you really average pixels to get a better overall picture.

There a low correlation at given sensor size between number of pixels and the sensor performance. Even only 12MP on FF for Sony A7S didn't did much in the end and a 645Z with it's 51MP beat it hands down anyway.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-24-2015 at 03:42 AM.
03-24-2015, 04:34 AM   #45
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Speaking of 12MP FF, this is to really gain 1/3EV in high iso in benchmark (see DxO scores) and at the expense of WORSE dynamic range and WORSE color deph. I agree that at very high isos it is less crappy than using another FF sony sensor... So if you mostly shoot pass 12800 on FF this make sense. Be sure to develop all your RAWS with DxO prime as there as much is no more difference by using a better denoising algorithm than there is between a A7R and other FF camera in high iso.

So, all of this make sense only when high iso is critical at the expense of getting low resolution all the time limiting the cropping capability severely.

I would not exchange my K3 and lenses to get Sony A7s + lenses for free. I don't want an inferior product because of the hype of better performance at 12800/25600 isos+ while most of my shoots are <800isos.
Yes, the A7s was designed as a high ISO performer. Hence why I was referring to indoor sports situations.

About your other comments, image-resource compared the A7s with the Sony A7, Canon 5D Mark III, Fujifilm X-T1, Nikon D750 and Panasonic GH4, but was unable to find any problems with dynamic range or colour depth:

ISO 100/200/400 images look practically the same with excellent detail, colors and, as expected, extremely little to zero noise, and therefore all print up to a maximum size of 24 x 36 inches. At this resolution, we are pushing the limits of the 12MP full-frame sensor, and at close inspection, you can see some pixelation. However at normal viewing distances of an arm-length or further, images look nice and crisp.

Dynamic range, in both photos and video, is impressive. RAW files are very flexible to adjustments, especially to pull out detail in shadows areas.

Anyway, combining the topic of this thread and the possibility of a Pentax FF DSLR, I would think Pentax would be doing good by producing and succeeding with a camera that doesn't exist yet, instead of joining the latest-greatest me-too camera race and not even being noticed.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
4k, 645z, auto, bandwidth, camera, crop, diffraction, display, dslr, ff camera, image, inches, lcd, lens, line, megapixel, megapixels, mp, mpx, photography, photos, pixels, ppi, race, sensor, square, yoga
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So is 16 megapixel enough? RonHendriks1966 Pentax DSLR Discussion 307 11-20-2014 10:52 AM
Why is the K-5 IIs video mode so bad? ZombieArmy Pentax K-5 37 07-10-2014 09:08 AM
Is the image processor in Pentax K-r is good enough? dmnf Photographic Technique 10 05-15-2013 09:43 AM
[Auto-ISO] so, is the K5 and Kr brave enough to use max iso? Reportage Pentax K-5 13 10-24-2010 03:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top