[mikesbike]

+1 more for agreeing with Des and kypfer.

I could easily see improvement in sharpness going from my 6mp K100D Super to my K200D, after proper setup with implementing "Fine Sharpness" for highest quality JPEG images. There was again improvement upon getting my K-5, then again finer detail from my K-5 IIs eliminating the AA filter which is still a very highly-regarded model, all cameras with the same setup. The build and controls of the K-5 cameras also being in a higher league then those before. I now mainly use my KP and my FF K-1 II. These are definitely producing the best imaging out of my fine lenses I have ever experienced, though I still sometimes shoot with my still very good K-5 IIs. With imaging this good, and the amazing low light/higher ISO performance they can provide, I feel I have most certainly reached the point where I will be satisfied for a long-haul future with what I have.

Much also depends on the type of subject matter involved. Just shooting casual family and friends snapshots in good lighting, and viewing at moderate size, the average viewer might not notice much advancement over the old 6mp camera.

Welcome to the forum. If you decide for getting the K-70, it is best to buy a new one instead of used, and from a reputable high-volume dealership. This will insure getting a later-batch K-70 having the improved solenoid part, as the old part was subject to failure.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 11-05-2022 at 11:19 AM.

[brianmquinn]

I have explained it several times in the past. If you keep the image sensor the same size and just cut it up into more pieces that does not always make the image better.
If you ordered a super size "16 slice pizza" and opened the box to find it was only 8 slices would you be happy if you took it back to the shop and they made a few more cuts to get you to 16 slices.
After all they DOUBLED the size of your pizza!

[UncleVanya]

I have explained it several times in the past. If you keep the image sensor the same size and just cut it up into more pieces that does not always make the image better.
If you ordered a super size "16 slice pizza" and opened the box to find it was only 8 slices would you be happy if you took it back to the shop and they made a few more cuts to get you to 16 slices.
After all they DOUBLED the size of your pizza!

That's a tortured comparison. If I make a drawing with pointellism techniques and use a finer pen tip that gives drops half the size - the end product will be more detailed evergreen if the size remains the same. Where this starts to fail is when noise levels are intrusive to the final product.

[brianmquinn]

That's a tortured comparison. If I make a drawing with pointellism techniques and use a finer pen tip that gives drops half the size - the end product will be more detailed evergreen if the size remains the same. Where this starts to fail is when noise levels are intrusive to the final product.

But that is not valid if the circle of confusion covers more than one pixel and it usually does with sensors with very high pixel density..

[UncleVanya]

But that is not valid if the circle of confusion covers more than one pixel and it usually does with sensors with very high pixel density..

At certain f stops absolutely true. But terms like high pixel count are a bit loose. My experience with high density sensors is that a 20mp 1” sensor is still not constrained in practical terms until more than f5.6 and that sensor has smaller pixels than a 60mp ff. I’m not sure what you have in mind.

Sony RX100 M4: Diffraction Samples

[Mark DeB]

Thanks to all for your kind replies. I very much appreciate it!

Mark

[mikesbike]

We could possibly go back to the early 3mp models, or even 1mp but with reeeely big pixels. Could be made available for low cost.

When I got my first Pentax DSLR, it was at 6mp. Before that I took little interest in the prospect of getting a digital camera, as their quality produced was well below what I was getting with my Pentax 35mm film outfits. So I just kept shooting film. When the 6mp models came, these were much better, though after getting one I still found my film images to be better in many respects. Only upon acquiring my 10mp K200D did I find imaging to be getting nearly equal to my 35mm film results, although film could still top it for DR. Since then, DSLR advancements have been beyond anything we could have imagined, both in features and in the quality of imaging. For some years now, I rarely shoot film, though I still hang on to a number of Pentax 35mm film bodies, thinking I might do so just for fun.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 11-05-2022 at 09:44 PM.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

At certain f stops absolutely true. But terms like high pixel count are a bit loose. My experience with high density sensors is that a 20mp 1” sensor is still not constrained in practical terms until more than f5.6 and that sensor has smaller pixels than a 60mp ff. I’m not sure what you have in mind.

If we take a look at sensors with 24mp and 45mp the camera with 45mp is still sharper stopped down to ƒ11 than the 24mp camera set to its sharpest ƒ-stop 5.6

Just because we enter into pixel density that show diffraction earlier does not mean that there are not anymore gains to be had, There is the benefit of using diffraction to limit aliasing and false detail rather than strong AA filters and also the more information from greater densities for processing data.

You also increase the number of red photosites that record data and seeing how they are fewer of them the more the marrier

[UncleVanya]

If we take a look at sensors with 24mp and 45mp the camera with 45mp is still sharper stopped down to ƒ11 than the 24mp camera set to its sharpest ƒ-stop 5.6

Just because we enter into pixel density that show diffraction earlier does not mean that there are not anymore gains to be had, There is the benefit of using diffraction to limit aliasing and false detail rather than strong AA filters and also the more information from greater densities for processing data.

You also increase the number of red photosites that record data and seeing how they are fewer of them the more the marrier

Agreed. My point in linking the RX100 practical testing was to show how despite having tiny sensor sites, practical use shows that you have a lot more headroom to stop down than people suspect from looking at simple curves. But you make another good point - even when diffraction starts it can be deceiving to compare two sensors diffraction points without comparing the final products directly.

[SelrahCharleS]

In my experience going from an *ist DS to a K-50(and later K-5IIs) the biggest immediate difference I noticed was the increased resolution, though that isn't often as much a factor at normal viewing sizes (i.e. not 100% viewing on a screen).

The second thing I noticed was the better high ISO. On my DS the highest I'll usually like to shoot is around ISO 1600 or maybe 3200, where on the K-50/K-5IIs I'll go up to 6400 and still find the images generally acceptable.

After time I noticed how much more DR I had and could edit the files without losing a lot of quality. Most noticeable is the ability to push shadows up, which I'll post an example of. With the DS I find I have to choose between blowing highlights or noisy shadows (or sometimes both) in high DR situations. With the K-50 and newer cameras the files are a lot more malleable.

I still love the images from my DS when the light is favorable, but the newer cameras are a lot more flexible in less ideal conditions.

Beyond image quality you'll find just about every other aspect of the camera to be improved. Much more responsive in every respect and the screen is actually usable for reviewing images.

Not sure how it will come through with the PentaxForums resizing/compression, but here is a quick comparison where I pushed Exposure 3 stops in Darktable and brought the highlights back down with auto levels in the Filmic module. If someone has suggestions on a good way to share the raw files I'm happy to do that.

[mgoblue]

Thanks to all for your kind replies. I very much appreciate it!

Mark

I don’t think you will see much difference on a monitor if the photo is not enlarged/cropped or high ISO.

I have k110 (6mp), k50 (16mp), and Nikon d750 (24mp full frame). I have huge catalogs in Lightroom. The differences on a 24" monitor with full screen preview (not cropped) are not very significant — without knowing it would be hard to guess which camera took which photo if the ISO is low. I have taken crap photos and stunners with all of them.

For that matter I have enlarged and framed prints from all of these cameras. I have done a 36” wide canvas print from a k110 file. Sure the d750 would have had more detail but it doesn’t matter for the image. People love that canvas.

To me, so much more depends on the subject, framing, lighting, and lens, than the camera body. Certain images when enlarged also simply don’t demand the same resolution of other images.

Once the ISO goes beyond 400 or the cropping starts, the differences become much, much bigger and more and more easily recognizable. Even still I do a 20” print at ISO1600 from my k110 and someone who knows my gear looked at it and commented about the amazing high ISO thinking I used one of my newer bodies. They could never get that with their Nikon d90 they said. But I used the k110! The subject and the noise software masked the noise. Another subject could have looked much worse, but for that subject it really wouldn’t have mattered much which body I used, unless I went beyond 20" -- that was as big as I could go.

Also if you decided you wanted to autofocus on action shots with new lenses then the body can make a really big difference. The k110 autofocus feels poor after the d750, but at the time when it was new I was impressed by the k110. I was coming from all manual focus like you. I cut and put a canon EeS manual focus screen in the k110 which also makes it still my favorite dslr body for manual focus lenses. Makes it manual focus like my film bodies. So incredibly easy! For me it is better than live view on a back screen.

Anyway that was a long way to say: More pixels and better high ISO in the k70 gives better cropping and lowlight. You will also get more dynamic range which can help some scenes quite a bit -- like landscapes with bright clouds and dim foregrounds. But if those things don’t matter to your style, the images won’t be much different.

[reh321]

I went Q-7 to K-30 to KP.
Of course, I had to learn. but most of what was different in the KP, I learned here by what people said here about the K-1. The ability to crop more alone made the K-30 to KP jump worthwhile, not a “waste of money” {I’m not sure want I would have gained getting a K-3iii}.

[kypfer]

{I’m not sure want I would have gained getting a K-3iii}.

Principally … significantly improved a/f, but, of course, if moving subjects aren't your "thing", that's probably not a big deal
The KP really is very good

[reh321]

The KP really is very good

Before the K-3iii was released, I heard all about the KP’s shortcomings - now the moving subjects most photographed are apparently racing mushrooms {which require the flippy LCD}. Yes, I would like better AF, but not nearly $2K worth of it.