[jeffkrol]

I think you counted only the pixel count, but forget about all other very important things on image quality such as noise levels, dynamic range, DoF, colour accuracy and so on.

So, the limitation on the image quality is not on the resolving power of the lenses, but on all of the above other things.

I suppose you are not suggesting P&S DC image quality in future Pentax DSLRs, are you?

I suggest you CAREFULLY read this thread and all related threads...... you may be surprised.
More pixels the better--two controversial claims contradict: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28315327
Or, you can try this thought experiment: how can counting the number of photons in 4x as many photosites 1/4 the size lose any important information?
A lot of your urban legends are being challenged.........
And to add an even more controversial claim:
High ISO improved from the K10D to the K20D, but low ISO actually took a hit. The K10D had the lowest base-ISO pixel read noise of any DSLR, and the K20D is one of the highest.
I don't attribute that to pixel density, though. I attribute it to a combination of getting sensors from other companies, and cost-cutting folly.
OR:
Generically noise increases at finer scales, and thus smaller photosites *appear* to be noisier, even if they are in fact better performers than larger photosites when the proper comparison is made at equivalent spatial scales.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=29593040
From the mouth of CANON:
"It all depends on the sensor size and pixel size; the EOS 5D Mark II has a much larger pixel pitch than any compact, so obviously that makes a big difference. However, in the future, even the small pixels will, by improvements to the technology, offer better quality - though we cannot say when."
oR:
So our point is, why keep going? If you're already at the point where adding megapixels brings no benefits why do it? As a market leader could Canon not take a stand on this issue…

"To some extent I agree with you, which is why we're looking at the possibility of adding diversity to the G10, which would be the answer to those looking for something other than high megapixel count."

"To some extent" is a wonderful phrase meaning "your sort of right, but not really...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=29622047

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-08-2008 at 06:30 AM.

[pingflood]

I for one would love to see swappable sensors; we'd be back in the old film days again! :-)

Could have a max ISO 400 super high res (42MP?) sensor, and a lower res (6mp?) with maybe max 12,800 or something. Just pop in the one you need and go to town.

edit: and a nice high res 16-bit monochrome one!

[rburgoss]

Agree with the previous posts.

My original post was to demonstrate that there is no need for bigger sensors (full frame) to get better images (this in the FF speculation matter...). APS-C sensors are quite capable of producing top images.

Indeed, when I compare pictures from my WPI with ones taken with my IST-D, (both at 6 mpix), the ones from my istD are sharper, less noise, clearer, better and such than the ones from the wpi.

My point is than I am not for the billion pixels. I am for the better images that somehow, in point & shoot cameras like the wpi, have managed to pack very good results in very small packages that perform quite reasonable. I just want to pinpoint that such technology exists and if correctly applied to DSLR's, there is no need for bigger sensors.

Back in the film days, we had to deal basically with two things: Film grain and optical quality. Nowdays, we have pixel density, sensor quality, alogarithms, interpolation, A/D converters, screens, printers... etc. etc. etc.... you name it. Just remember that any chain is as strong as its weakest link. The problem with digital photography, is that is quite difficult to pinpoint where is the weak link. In the film days, we could easily point fingers at the film or the lens. Period.

Let's try to keep enjoying our beloved hobby (proffession) as is. Looking at the other side of the fence will only make us bitter. Don't forget your photo gear is an instrument for certain goals: Picture taking!

After 35 plus years of enjoying photography with Pentax gear, I could hardly find a bad photo that could be blamed on the gear. 99.999% of the bad results come from me and only me. The remaining 0.00001% is that time my AF540FGZ missed a wireless sync...

Robert B

[emalvick]

I for one would love to see swappable sensors; we'd be back in the old film days again! :-)

Could have a max ISO 400 super high res (42MP?) sensor, and a lower res (6mp?) with maybe max 12,800 or something. Just pop in the one you need and go to town.

edit: and a nice high res 16-bit monochrome one!

I like this idea.

[kenyee]

What you're basically doing is downsampling (resizing an image down). It's an effective means of postprocessing to get a noisy image to look better, but doesn't work that well for high iso situations.
There's already real-world proof...the Fuji F30 vs. Fuji F50. The latter is 12mpix. The former (which I have) is 6mpix and is the P&S w/ the best low light performance except for maybe the Sigma DP1 which uses an APS-C sized sensor. If you resize the F50 images down, they do look like they have more detail, however, you lose 1-2 stops of low light performance. Look at the comparisons on DPR. I had forgotten about this...

[dave sz]

I think that the camera MP wars are about the same thing as processor GHZ wars. If intel wanted to release a 100ghz processor tomorrow they prolly could, but then where would they go from there? They'd make more money by raising power in small increments. I'm sure the MP side of things is about the same. Slowly raise the MP count to milk us for as much money as possible when the next big MP camera comes out...

[jeffkrol]

What you're basically doing is downsampling (resizing an image down). It's an effective means of postprocessing to get a noisy image to look better, but doesn't work that well for high iso situations.
There's already real-world proof...the Fuji F30 vs. Fuji F50. The latter is 12mpix. The former (which I have) is 6mpix and is the P&S w/ the best low light performance except for maybe the Sigma DP1 which uses an APS-C sized sensor. If you resize the F50 images down, they do look like they have more detail, however, you lose 1-2 stops of low light performance. Look at the comparisons on DPR. I had forgotten about this...

Hard for me to trust DPR... I'm not sure they are correct in all their assumptions.
Case in point is pixel size vs noise:
I trust Mr Martin more
Pixel density is not and never has been the issue for noise. It's sensor size, despite DPR's attempts to infer otherwise.
or Most people judge noise at 100% pixel view. This enlarges the images from a small pixel sensor more than the images of a large pixel sensor, in order to fit each on the fixed size pixels of a monitor. Enlarging the small pixel images more, one is viewing them at a smaller scale (finer resolution) and the laws of physics guarantee that there will be more noise, even though the two images properly resampled, or viewed at the same image size, have the same S/N over the whole image.
Re: A pixel density question: Nikon D300 - D100 Forum: Digital Photography Review
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=29618359
DPreview - START ANALYSING NOISE PROPERLY!!

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-08-2008 at 06:31 AM.

[dylansalt]

Has not the megapixel war been fueled by pixel peeping on ever increasing monitor sizes?

Purely more mega pixels gives the ability for larger print sizes - but who actually regularly prints to A10?

BUT now - new consumers are basing the quality of the picture on say a 22inch monitor at full resolution - so comparing a 6mp to 10mp on this monitor - well the 6mp will look crappy but 14 megs - wow great!

Hence this push for more mega pixels in camera's to satisfy firstly ego (mine is bigger than yours) 2nd - fantastic resolution on bigger monitors AND for HDTV LCD and thirdly for the chap that wants to print billboards

Hey just a theory of mine ;-)

D

[alohadave]

Agree on the viewfinder. I still mis the IMAX sensation from my old MX body when looking into the viewfinder. About the density, its there. The Optio WPI has that density. Its sensor performance is quite good and I'm affraid to say its better than the one on the K20D, because it has more pixels in the same capture area. See the following test:

Test goal: To have the same subject captured by two different sensors (K20D and Optio Wpi), with the same magnificacion, using the same focal length. For this I Used the WPI at 18.9 mm setting -its longest f/l- and the K20D with my DA12-24, set at 18 mm. The crop factor between each other is what gives the angle of view).

Attachment 19791

Both images are basic JPGS from both cameras, both full frames captured, without any PP. Wpi set at 6 mpix and K20D at 14.6 mpix. I guess this image proves my point. The WPI shows a lot better resolution than the K20D, given same subject, same distance, same focal length, even same ISO (BOTH at 200 ISO). Of course, the difference comes from the pixel density which is about 60% higher than of the K20D.

Are you hearing this PENTAX? How about giving us a DSLR with the same pixel density as the Optio's.... Or at least, implant the same interpolation alogarithms from the OPTIO to a new DSLR.... Or could it be that the Optio has better glass than the DA 12-24... at the very center of the frame? Nahhhh.....

Robert B.

Your comparison is off-base. The Optio has more aggressive sharpening and JPEG processing than your K20D does. The Optio (and most P&S cameras) are designed to give you a better looking picture straight out of the box. if you want the most from your K20D, you'll need to learn some basic post-processing techniques. Then you'll see how it shines compared to the Optio.

Besides that, the Optio is much smaller, so the DoF is much wider, so minor focusing errors are less visible than on any dSLR.

[kenyee]

Hard for me to trust DPR... I'm not sure they are correct in all their assumptions.
Case in point is pixel size vs noise:

Actually, these are DPR users who had both cameras and compared results from both at 6mpix. The F50 consistently didn't have as good low-light performance as the F30, but had more detail when comparing images at 6mpix (no surprise to me)...

[Mark2100]

My first post... I could not resist.

This is not a fair test simply because the amount of each lens being used.

The shot with the DA 12-24 has reached the limit of the lens. I didn't do the math, but it is a serious crop. I'm sure we all know super-wide zooms are just not very sharp. Adding more pixels is not going to help this.

Also, it's much easier to design a lens that sits only a few mm from the sensor. I'm sure you all have read about the troubles designers had when the slr came about.. having to move the lenses farther away from the film plane to clear the mirror.

Just my thoughts,

Mark

[Quicksand]

I want the next Pentax DSLR to have a 1/2.5" sensor. Just think of the advantages:

A 6.25 crop factor means your 200mm f/2.8 lens becomes a 35mm equivalent 1250mm f/2.8!

The shake reduction mechanism can move the sensor over a really large area without leaving the image circle, even with digital-specific lenses, leading to the ability to take sharp pictures while falling out of a window or getting eaten by a lion!

[Class A]

Furthermore, if you compare the crop factor for the WPI vs the APS-C camera, then the WPI has a crop factor of 4.5 x 6 compared to the APS-C value of 1.54 x 1.54.

This hits the nail on the head. The OP was basically comparing crop factors, not sensor resolution. The high magnification needed to blow up the larger sensor image to the same size is bound to show up lens and sensor resolution loss.

I second all statements that argue against insanely high MP sensors due to the sensitivity loss. While it is true that, say four pixels could theoretically catch as much light as one pixel that is four times as large, you'll never be able to not have space on the sensor which isn't light sensitive. For a given construction, therefore, the larger the pixels, the better the ratio between the light sensitive and the non-sensitive light areas. I'm not sure what controls the capacity (i.e., dynamic range) of a pixel. It may well be that size has a role to play too. If you cannot keep the same capacity by making the pixel deeper then increasing the pixel density also means decreasing the dynamic range.

BTW, from what I've read the noise of a high quality sensors is photon limited, i.e., there is no technological solution for having more sensitive pixel sites.

P.S.: There is one area where small sensor cameras really shine and this is extreme macro photography because of the correspondingly higher DOF.