[stihlmania]

psoo, I upgraded to the K-3II from my 1st D, 1st DS and 1st DL and I am glad I did. With the K-3II, my SMC prime images are sharper, my DA and FA zoom images are sharper and using live view [full magnification] help me understand and deal with tripod/ head vibration, resulting in sharper images! I still have all three D's and thanks to the K-3II I take sharper images with them now. I shoot raw+jpeg and the jpeg image right out of the camera needs little to no post processing, usually just white balance. With more megapixels comes larger file size, my normal raw file size from the K-3II is 30+/- mb, up from 10 +/-mb with the 6mp cameras. My K-3II jpeg images are 10+/-mb. I also use a Mac [late 2015-27 inch iMac] and I have noticed the larger raw files have caused my Mac to slow down or crash during post processing using Photos.This never happened with 10mb raw or jpeg files using iPhoto or Photos. I have 24gb of ram and am running High Sierra10.13.3 on my iMac but I have to go easy with post processing raw in Photos, I have to let the changes apply [wait a bit or watch the Activity Moniter/CPU usage] before I make more changes. I also am using On1 and so far it does not have those limitations so I use it for files over 40mb, like pixel shift files which can be 100 mb+! Be sure to back up all your photos and projects [I have 2 remote drives for this now in case 1 fails, learned that the hard way]......

[Kerrowdown]

I've been Megabitten

Well that's the slippery slope been delivered... K1s and Limiteds will be on their way to you shortly I would imagine.

[aslyfox]

Well that's the slippery slope been delivered... K1s and Limiteds will be on their way to you shortly I would imagine.

don't forget the * lenses as well

[Kerrowdown]

don't forget the * lenses as well

I was trying to make the trip down that slope... not too stressful.

[psoo]

It's true that the lens is often much more important than the camera. But you should be getting much better image quality from the K-50 and K-x compared to the other two. If not, you might need to work on your technique and/or settings. Also, are you shooting in raw? If you stay in jpeg mode, you lose a fair amount of detail, which does become noticeable with distant subjects.

There's a big jump from the K-50 to the K-70 too, IMO- not just in terms of resolution, but also color accuracy and noise performance.

If you want a really good lens, try the 16-85mm. Pair it with the 55-300mm and that could replace your other two walkaround zooms.

Hi Adam. Thanks for your advice. One thing I'll try is to shoot RAW more often. It seems that most advanced photographers squeeze extra quality from their shots by using RAW. With respect to spending more money on a pair of new lenses, I think I'll stick with what I've got. My 12-24mm, 18-135mm, and 18-250 Takumars are generally regarded as being top notch and undoubtedly more than adequate for my level of photography.

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 01:56 PM ----------

I'm very much an amateur, but here is what I've learned. In terms of image quality, my largest improvements are due to a. the computer monitor I'm viewing the photos on, b. the lens used, and, lastly, the body, in that order. I shoot mostly in jpeg. The camera bodies are K100d Super, and K-5.

Thanks Glen. I agree with everything that you mentioned. I like my K100D body because it's a bit larger than my Kx and K50 and seems to be better built. It still takes pictures that I like, and I enjoy using it.

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 02:08 PM ----------

It is not a one or the other thing.
A poor lens will be poor on any body.
A great lens will be wasted on a low end body.
Any combination will be ruined by poor technique.

One of the three will always be the bottleneck. Generally, amateurs tend to balk at the cost of top quality lenses and go for the attractive bells and whistles of a new body first - as such, the lens is often the bottleneck. But if you put the very best lens on your K-50, it will be the body that's holding you back. Or, quite possibly, you will make the greatest leaps forward by honing your skills first, which is the cheapest of all.

In the end, if you want stellar performance, you need a great lens on a great body used with great skill.

Hi Victor, as I said in my initial post I tend to buy "low-end" Pentaxes because I don't think I need many of the advanced features in my type of photography, but I do admire sharpness and good color rendering. That's why I want to buy the best glass. To save money I try to buy used lenses since, unlike a used car, it doesn't wear out with moderate use. My most frequently used lenses are all zooms which give me great flexibility. Maybe I should try my prime lenses more often to get that extra bit of sharpness. Also, I should hone up my photo techniques as some of you have mentioned. I may be getting a bit sloppy with my settings.

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 02:20 PM ----------

The most important element is you the Photographer and your ability to "see" an image worth capturing. The next important element is your ability to compose the scene moving up / down - this way / that way and then enters the lens to help you compose the scene with maybe a prime or even a Zoom to allow you to crop "live" ; moving in and out. Then the Camera takes over to register this scene you have captured and depending on the reproduction you want to view 4 X 6 - 8 X 10 - 40 X 30 prints or TV monitors 75" or larger etc ; you will need a Camera with MP's and the ability to reproduce the scene to your liking. And finally even with Modern digital cameras abilities PP may be required to put some finishing touches on your scene. But again the most important element is you because there is no image to critique without you.


Its all part of them !

Thanks for your comments, Honey. I do try to look at a scene and visually what my final photo should look like. I'll select the optimum ISO, aperture, and speed and zoom to the right image size. However, digital has spoiled me and I tend to shoot lots images in the knowledge that one will be just right. In the old 35 mm days one had to be extra careful in taking a photo because of the cost of each shot. I think I'll get sharper and better composed shots if I pay more attention to the settings I use.

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 02:33 PM ----------

I found all the camera upgrades I did gave me significantly more image quality than the cameras replaced.

K100D -> Kx, more resolving power I could get from my FA*400mm lens.

Kx -> K30, more malleability in the files from 16mp sensor.

K30 -> K-S2, higher resolution due to AA filter-less 20mp sensor.

If you have good lenses, newer better sensors will be able to extract more image quality from those lenses.

Hi LightBug. Thanks for your comments. I think that you must be an advanced photographer who pushes his equipment to its limits. Congrats, it must be lots of fun and challenging. I wish I had the patience and knowhow to do this However, for my type of amateur work, with my equipment, I am unable to see consistent differences in image quality as I switch from one camera body to another. It doesn't bother me too much though as you can gather from my initial post. I just want to be careful about buying new camera bodies that don't give noticeable improvements in image quality for my type of casual photography.

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 02:36 PM ----------

I went though the same thing your talking about!!!!
I was just not able to get that good sharp photo that I was seeing other photographers getting. Even on tripod (Canon & Nikon shooters)
So I almost made the jump😡 I was shooting the K3 II and was given a Canon 10D 6mgp and there 24-105 (I think) IS zoom, all older stuff
Boy I started to get a few better shots.
I told myself there is no way that that old dinosaur Canon should be outdoing (at the time) Pentax's Flagship. I was still using some older zooms (from the film days) they were awesome back then. So I'm thinking "IT HAS TO BE MY LENSES!!" I purchased a DA 50 1.8 (nothing at the top of Pentax's food chain)
All I have to say after that is "" HOLLY $HIT"" why did I wait so long to get a PRIME??
If at all possible pick up a good copy of a Pentax 35 or 50mm (don't worry about the LTD's yet)
And it will bring back the love of photography, you'll be able to pixel peak all you want!!!
Zooms are awesome and I won't take a road trip without them! And if you have some serious $$$$ to get top end ones you'll get some incredibly shots!
But boy primes are on the cheaper side and you'll see the defence instantly!!
Cheers & happy hunting 😀
You already have enough megapixels

Great comments Photocell. Thank you.

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 02:47 PM ----------

Well that's the slippery slope been delivered... K1s and Limiteds will be on their way to you shortly I would imagine.

Nar I'm still having lots of fun with my humble equipment. When I do take some "great shots" there's a feeling of satisfaction that that lasts for days. If my camera and lens costed $5000 I wouldn't feel as proud.

[psoo]

I've had some insightful comments on my post about not wanting to be Megabitten anymore. The comments center on improving my photographic techniques, purchasing better glass, etc. to get sharper pics. Nobody has mentioned post processing. I enjoy using the iPhoto application on my Mac desktop which is supplied free. It's very easy to use and does most of what I need to do. It even has an image sharpening feature, even though it doesn't seem to work very well. I believe most advanced photographers use software such as Photoshop. If I purchase this will I notice a significant improvement over iPhoto in terms of picture quality and sharpness? Remember I'm just an average enthusiastic photographer who never needs to take photos of black cats in unlit cellars at midnight, or pimples on a fly's bottom.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Something to note that hasn't been mentioned is fine tuning of the lens via sensor adjustment. Usually this will correct front/back focus. The best idea is to post examples of your images with notations on what you don't find to be sharp. The suggestions made will get narrowed down and refined.

[aslyfox]

there are a lot of post production products available

why not try some of the free ones first???

and if you find one of those acceptable, you have saved money for camera and lenses

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 14:39 ----------

. . . Nar I'm still having lots of fun with my humble equipment. When I do take some "great shots" there's a feeling of satisfaction that that lasts for days. If my camera and lens costed $5000 I wouldn't feel as proud.

of course, you decide what is best for you but

you might be surprised how inexpensive you might find an " experienced " limited or an " experienced " * lens

[Adam]

My 12-24mm, 18-135mm, and 18-250 Takumars

Why are you calling them Takumars?

Also, the image quality of the 18-250mm where it overlaps with the 18-135mm isn't better, hence my recommendation for a dedicated tele lens.

But, I guess if you keep one on the K-50 and one on the K-x, that would make sense.

[normhead]

Photozone tests of the 31 ltd. On Photozone and 10 MP
Max. resolution at ƒ4 2345 lw/ph. (Line widths per pixel hight) or how many distinct lines can the lens and sensor reproduce.



At 16 MP. 2596


The increase is about 250 lwph based on 6 more MP.

At 10 MP you have 243.5 lw/ph per MP.
At 16 MO you have 162.5 lw/ph per MP

So one thing that is happening is the law of diminishing returns. 50% more pixels... 15% more resolution.

Your 18-135 at 16 MP produces 2683 lw/ph @ 24mm so it isn't the lens.

You would expect the Pentax current focus on more capable lenses digital sensors is in part due to the lack of resolution to be gained from using a film era lens on a digital sensor as the sensor density increases.

How is it on Nikon?

At 16 MP Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED = 2883 lw/ph
At 24 MP Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED = 3704 lw/ph (tested on the D7200)

50% more MP, 28% improvement... twice as much as the 31 ltd. Modern glass vs. film era glass.

Looking at sensors, and these numbers are not comparable to the above numbers, testing sites each have their own quirks, so wipe those numbers out of your mind but just for comparison.... the D7200 tested in Imaging resources.

Using a Sigma 70 2.8 the 7200 tests at 2950 lw/ph
Using a Sigma 70 2.8 the K-3ii tests at 2750 lw/ph

The K-S2 tests at 2500 lw/ph
If memory serves me well, because I can't find the source, the K-5 (16 Mp) tested at about 2100 lw/ph.

Without breaking it all down, you can see that although the Sigma 70 is an excellent lens 4MP gets you 400 lw/ph from 16-20 and 250 MP from 20-24. Again diminishing returns rears it's ugly head.

One more thing to consider, your largest print is 8x10.
At 16 MP with a Sigma 70 you are 8 inches deep for 2100 lwph... that's 262 distinct lines per inch. .0038
At 24 MP you'd have a resolution of 344 lines per inch or a minimum line thickness of .0029 inches.

So do you think you can see a difference of .0009 inches?

The issue here is your 8x10s don't stress a 16 MP camera. At that size and 262 distinct lines per inch, you are very close to the maximum DPI of your printer. So there's not much left to be gained. With the only test I've seen on this saying most people can't tell the difference between 72 DPI and 150 DPI, you can begin to understand the problem with increasing detail.

Something that is often overlooked on the forum is how little you get for your money as sensors get better using older glass. But even then with the Nikon 24, you still only get a 28% improvement for 50% more MP.

And that will only be visible when you have detail in your image that uses the available resolution. For example, if the finest detail to be resolved in your image is 100 distinct lines per inch, and think about that, that's pretty good detail. The 262 distinct lines per inch is pretty darn good. The simple fact is, based on my own observations at craft shows etc. MP stopped being a critical component of a camera in terms of selling even 30x20 canvases at about 12 MP. Everything after that in most images is over kill and goes to oversampling. Especially in 8x10 prints where no one is really sure that the printers involved can actually resolve that kind of detail. We know your monitor can't.

I'm using a 2010 27 inch iMac for 36 MP files, and it became manageable when I upgraded to an SSD drive. But mine is an i7 quad core. The processor makes a huge difference.

Most people pay for a lot of capability they will never use.

[bm75]

Another point is that theorethical resolution can't define a sharp picture by itself. Perceived sharpness is related to colour and contrasts in the image. Typically you extract the most sharpness from flat files (raw files are "flat" but contain the most of the informations captured by the sensor) but the output (i.e. the processed jpeg) contains just a fraction of those informations about colour, resolution, etc but appears sharper. So what makes a grat photo is not that much related to the theorethical sharpness (of lens/camera combo) but to the light itself and the way this light is being captured in the frame. More mpx could help (because you have much more data) but only if you post produce your images from raw and you're able to extract every single bit form every single pixel.

[normhead]

Anyway to finish up....
DA 18-135 at 24mm...2683 ;e/ph @ ƒ5.6
DA 70 , the best lens tested on photozone, 2706 @ ƒ4
Another high flyer the DA 35 2.4 , best sharpness, 2723 @ ƒ4
D-FA 50 macro = 2668 @ ƒ4
The "awful" kit lens best metric, 2604 lw/ph at ƒ8.

The point being, if your technique isn't getting you very good images with the kit lens, then upgrading lenses probably isn't the problem. The difference in resolution in lenses is smaller than what you can expect upgrading your sensor, at least up until that point where the sensor actually out resolves the lens. As far as I know, no lens produced since 2000 has out resolved a sensor.

Better glass, makes an improvement in one area, upgrading your camera makes all your lenses better. The tamron 70-300, a typical long cheap telephoto achieves almost 1940 lw/ph in it's long end 300mm

The 55-300 gives you you 1892 lw/ph
The DA* 60-250 gives you 2179 at it's best.

As with everything else, with lenses, you pay a lot to get a little more. But as you get better bodies, your better glass gets better and better, whereas you can't expect as much improvement with weaker glass. But bottom line your best glass on 10 MP, the DA 70 at 2238, is not as good as your worst glass (18-55) I'll use 55 mm, because it's closest to 70mm at 2419 @ƒ8 on 16 MP.

At least that would be the conclusion using those numbers available on Photozone.

[mikesbike]

I have been a Pentax owner and admirer for decades, starting with 35 mm cameras and point-and-shoots. Then I progressed to digital which I love because I can process the images on my Mac and produce nice sharp prints (up to 10x8 ins. is as far as I usually want to go) and slide shows with music. I take a lot of photos while on travel including landscapes, flowers,wild life, macros, etc. as well as lots of pics of my family. I am obsessed with "sharp" photos and am seduced by any new Pentax camera which offers more megapixels. I first owned an istDL (6.1 MP), then a K100D (6.1 MP), then a Kx (12.4 MP), and finally a K50 (16.3 MP). I still own the last three bodies. With each purchase I was expecting that the increased MP's would guarantee sharper photos but I did not notice ant significant improvement for my type of photography. I had become obsessed with the number of MP that a camera offered. I had, in fact, become Megabitten. Each new Pentax body I purchased offered extra bells and whistles which I really didn't need. That's why I buy low-end Pentaxes. Even though I buy new camera bodies I continue to use my standard Takumars on them (12-24 mm, 18-135mm, and the 18-250 mm). I'm beginning to think think that the lenses are more important for sharpness that the number of MP's. If this is true then I may as well save money and stick with my K50 forever. I could try to find "sharper" lenses but I think that what I have are more than adequate for me. What say ye learned Pentaxians?

If you are saying you can see no difference in images you get between those taken with your K100D Super, and those taken with your K-50, and using the lenses you have, especially the DA 12-24mm f/4 and the DA 18-135mm, I agree with others saying- improve your picture-taking capabilities. I've had both the K100D Super and the K-5, which is quite similar to the K-50, and I could easily see differences- improvements in those I took with the K-5, even with JPEGs! As others have said, having a good prime lens will help also.

All that said, regardless of all the test charts and lens lab testing results, and camera test results, if you do not see any difference in the images you take, that is what counts. Just keep shooting with your very good K-50. But do get a good prime lens to improve your photography by working with a good lens within a single focal length. The DA 35mm f/2.4 might be a good start.

---------- Post added 03-04-18 at 06:55 PM ----------

Oh, paaaleeeeaaaase.

Doing about 100 in near darkness. With the notoriously slow 55-300 (non-PLM version).





Get better lenses. Get better at your craft.

Good stuff, Sandy! I also have the older HD 55-300mm f/4-5.8 WR lens and I love it. No problems for me either.

[BrianR]

.... produce nice sharp prints (up to 10x8 ins. is as far as I usually want to go) ....I first owned an istDL (6.1 MP), then a K100D (6.1 MP), then a Kx (12.4 MP), and finally a K50 (16.3 MP). I still own the last three bodies. With each purchase I was expecting that the increased MP's would guarantee sharper photos but I did not notice ant significant improvement for my type of photography....

I went from a k100d (6 mp) to a k5iis (16 MP). I can print 8x12's from either camera and hang them side by side. No one will be able to tell. Assuming you aren't doing any major cropping (and I don't), 6mp is sufficient for 8x12's. The newer cameras do have much better dynamic range, and will wallop the old 6mp cameras in challenging lighting, but that only applies to me 5% or less of the time (my tripod and flashes being key components here, ymmv).

More megapixels will let you print larger and still be able to examine your print up close. Or it will let you crop more. If neither of these are concerns, then there's no reason to chase more MP especially since you're armed with a k50. Spend your money on lenses and other accessories that let you do new things, eg you mentioned 'macros' but did not mention a dedicated macro lens in your arsenal? If not, get one, especially if you're obsessed with sharpness!

[stihlmania]

I, or pimples on a fly's bottom.

Or feathers under a birds tail?