[DonV]

While not strictly equate able, the K1 full frame's 36 megapixels covers about twice the area of the KP's 24 megapixels; so to be "equal" the K1 would need 48 megapixels!
But the size of the pixel/pixel density, diffraction, the lens used, and a host of other variables enter into the perceived finished photo.

The full frame K1 excels in image quality as does the KP, but not just due the raw megapixel numbers.
Given a choice, the full frame K1 should be used for wide shots, and the KP or other apsc for telephoto; unless you happen to have the "other" camera in hand!

So essentially I agree with Mikesbike !

[mikesbike]

Yes, true, but if using a longer lens with the K-1 II that covers less area to provide the same image size (same area) in both cases, the 36mp vs 24mp is applied to that same area. The K-1 II would be capable of delivering more resolution in the same framed shot, the quality of the two lenses being close to equal.

---------- Post added 04-06-22 at 10:47 PM ----------

But the size of the pixel/pixel density, diffraction, the lens used, and a host of other variables enter into the perceived finished photo.

Right.

[DonV]

If using two different focal length lenses, or the same zoom lens at different focal length, to achieve the same image the effect of changing the number of pixels is lost;
it would seem then any comparison of results is like an apple to an orange.

It is like saying more pixels in the same size sensor results in more resolution, isn't it ? An equivalent comparison would be the same lens, same focal length, same image by using the "crop" feature of the K1ii.

And I left out "precise focus" as a compounding or confounding issue!

[reh321]

It is like saying more pixels in the same size sensor results in more resolution, isn't it ? An equivalent comparison would be the same lens, same focal length, same image by using the "crop" feature of the K1ii.

The “crop” feature of any K-1ii is certainly not equivalent to using the “KP”, which can put more pixels on the subject.
And yes, a small-sensored camera - which can put more pixels on the subject - does have more resolution.

added: when I first got my K-30, I did some tests of lenses using a back-yard target.
A crop of my K-30 the size of my Q-7’s sensor had fewer than 2mp pixels, was no competition for my Q-7’s 12mp of sensors in the same area.

---

Last edited by reh321; 04-08-2022 at 06:04 AM.

[Wheatfield]

Another vote for keeping your K5IIs, as long as it's feature set and it's16mp is sufficient for your needs. It's the camera the K5 should have been if Hoya had bothered to have adults in the room, but it took Ricoh to do that. If you need more resolution, there is very good AI driven software now that will give it to you. Adobe Photoshop, for example, will quadruple your pixel count during raw conversion, effectively making your K5IIs into a 64mp camera.
Side note, this is not your daddy's bicubic interpolation, this is a genuine AI driven interpolation that leaves no residual artifacts that I have seen over several dozen images that I have used it on.
I expect there is also stand alone software that will do a similar job.
If you are thinking a K1 is in your future, I expect there are good used ones available now, but I also have been led to believe that Ricoh will be releasing a new full frame body, possibly as early as this fall, but more than likely we are a year to 18 months away. When that body is released, I am sure it will put downwards pressure on used K1 and K1II prices, so if you can hold out, that is a viable strategy.

[DonV]

he “crop” feature of any K-1ii is certainly not equivalent to using the “KP”, which can put more pixels on the subject.
And yes, a small-sensored camera - which can put more pixels on the subject - does have more resolution.

That is what I said, the K1ii at the same sensor size has fewer pixels; perhaps I didn't make it clear enough- I agree with you.
The "crop" feature of the K1 is only equivalent in size and has only about 18megapixels vs 24 for the KP; hence that would be a fair comparison for evaluating the photos.

[mikesbike]

That is what I said, the K1ii at the same sensor size has fewer pixels; perhaps I didn't make it clear enough- I agree with you.
The "crop" feature of the K1 is only equivalent in size and has only about 18megapixels vs 24 for the KP; hence that would be a fair comparison for evaluating the photos.

That is right in principle and reality, except word has it you get about the same resolution as with the 16mp K-5 IIs when operating the K-1 II in crop mode. So yes, that would indeed be a fair comparison for evaluating the photos. Whether 16mp or 18mp, still not close to 24mp. But then, the same principles can be conversely applied going the other direction.

There is also the familiar scene shot with a FF camera with an outline within that scene showing how much less of it an APS-C camera would present, using the same lens FL of course. The area covered is demonstrated to be much greater from the FF shot. But if that greater area was from a 36mp FF camera, and the smaller area shown as covered by the APS-C camera were not an actual APS-C shot, instead simply cropped out of that FF shot, the resolution of that area would only be about the same as if shot by the 16mp K-5 IIs. The rest of the 36mp would be lost with the rest of the image discarded. Another way of showing the above. Clearly, the 24mp APS-C shot of that part of the full-size scene using the same lens of that FL would have the advantage in resolution.

However, if using a shorter, essentially same quality lens in every way, but of suitably less FL on the 24mp APS-C camera to get the same larger area FOV displayed by the 36mp FF camera shot, the scene would be of identical coverage. Then there would be one identical scene made by a 24mp APS-C camera and the other by a 36mp FF camera. No difference in area covered. The one made with the 36mp camera would have the advantage of a 50% gain in resolution over the 24mp APS-C shot. We do this regularly. For example, if we take the well-regarded DA 17-70mm zoom lens on a 24mp K-3II, or under some circumstances better on the KP, we could essentially mimic each photo taken by using the DFA 28-105mm lens on the K-1 II. But these images would not be the same in resolution, since the K-1 II would be operating at 36mp with the same coverage as that of the APS-C cameras operating at 24mp, which is with a 50% gain in resolving power, by the K-1 II, at no disadvantage other than carrying weight.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 04-08-2022 at 10:17 PM.

[JensE]

Btw., the 50% more resolution alone does not explain the differences in image appearance. Looking at it linearly, we only have about 1.225 times the pixel density in each direction than on the KP and K-3 (22.5% percent more, the square root of 36/24). But each of those pixels is also bigger, resulting in less noise. This does apply to low-ISO images, but even more so once you need to increase amplification (ISO and/or EV compensation in post-processing). In practice though, the quality of my KP and even K-5 images, at full size, are by far sufficient for my largest 'regular' print sizes (A2, about 42 x 60cm) and it is really the slightly higher degree to which the raw images are malleable in post-processing, which makes a subtle difference. The experience when taking the photo (viewfinder, display) and the character of the respective lenses usually matter more to me than resolution and noise, except in marginal light situations such as available light indoors or night time handheld photos in cities.


For 'resolution parity' for long focal lengths, you only need 1.225x the focal length on the K-1 compared to K3 or KP, not the full 1.5x required for the same field of view. So the DA300 gives you almost the same reach as the DA60-250 on a KP. That reduces the weight penalty a bit. Of course, cropping down to 24MP also reduces the noise advantage to about half a stop.

I was in a similar boat when I decided to get a K-1 coming from a K-5, not a K-3 variant: No loss in detail, but an extension of options and features. I think that was well worth it for me.

[reh321]

That is what I said, the K1ii at the same sensor size has fewer pixels; perhaps I didn't make it clear enough- I agree with you.
The "crop" feature of the K1 is only equivalent in size and has only about 18megapixels vs 24 for the KP; hence that would be a fair comparison for evaluating the photos.

My understanding is that the K-1 has 16mp in “crop” mode, basically the same as a K-30/50.
As an owner of both a K-30 and a KP, I can say that they are completely different;
the included hardware gives the KP much better photos at higher ISO values.

[DonV]

Great points guys, interesting ways to look at "comparisons" for sure; I guess the only safe thing one can say is that the two cameras are different.