[James O'Neill]

It was more simple than that.

I intended to type 24mp, the K3 sensor res, and not 2. One missing 4 makes a huge difference doesn't it? It was already corrected, but not until you were probably in the midst of composing the very good reply you posted.

What's a factor of 12 between freinds? :-) And you're right of course.
Somewhere around about 200 pixels per inch the eye just can't see any improvement, a lot of people quote 300 DPI because that was the highest quality screen used by the printing industry but it doesn't translate to a minimum pixels per inch. 60MP will give good prints at A0 size, 30MP at A1 size, 15 at A2 size, 8 at A3 size, 4 at A4 size. Someone looked at one of my A3 prints a while ago and said something about the amazing quality of modern cameras and lenses (assuming, I guess, that I'd used something like the DFA* 85 on the K1). I didn't tell him it was shot in 2004 with an FA 50 made in the 1990s to a 1960s formula mounted on a 6MP *ist-D, that was 170 pixels per inch, which is pushing it a little bit. As size and viewing distance increases we can usually push a bit harder
For those who are fixated on 300 pixels per printed inch its 140MP for A0, 70 for A1, 35 for A2, and 18 for A3, and 9 for A4.

---------- Post added 06-01-23 at 06:39 AM ----------

As for 61mp vs 36 or 42… even in the Sony world the arguments rage. The best conclusions I’ve read suggest the extra resolution is mostly valuable if you plan to crop. This permits cropping deeper and still printing with enough detail.

Be careful of simplistic assumptions on cropping. TLDR You can increase the crop factor but not as much as you might think

Go back far enough and I think the first mass market full frame DSLR was ~12 MP. With 12MP we could get a decent amount of detail. For illustration I'm going to imagine a lens such that 12MP gets half the detail in the lens's image or if you're a glass half empty person, we lose 1/2.
We double the res to 24, and we plainly don't get a perfect recording of 100% of what is in the image, instead of losing 1/2 we lose 1/4
We double again (48), and now instead of losing 1/4 we lose 1/8th
So we've gone 50%, 75%, 87.5% - 48 to 96 would take us to 93.75% - lets say for round numbers 60MP gives us 90%
If 12MP enough we can crop 60 down to 12, right ? No so fast! If the problem was the print looked like a mosaic for lack of pixels, then maybe, but a 12 from 60 crop only has 1/5th of 90% of the lens detail - 18% When we used 12MP for the whole image we had 50% of the detail.

We might be able to crop 12 down to 8 and have 1/3 of the lens detail and still make a decent print. But to still have 33% from our 90% / 60MP we need to keep 22MP - we can crop twice as hard with 5x the pixels.

[UncleVanya]

What's a factor of 12 between freinds? :-) And you're right of course.
Somewhere around about 200 pixels per inch the eye just can't see any improvement, a lot of people quote 300 DPI because that was the highest quality screen used by the printing industry but it doesn't translate to a minimum pixels per inch. 60MP will give good prints at A0 size, 30MP at A1 size, 15 at A2 size, 8 at A3 size, 4 at A4 size. Someone looked at one of my A3 prints a while ago and said something about the amazing quality of modern cameras and lenses (assuming, I guess, that I'd used something like the DFA* 85 on the K1). I didn't tell him it was shot in 2004 with an FA 50 made in the 1990s to a 1960s formula mounted on a 6MP *ist-D, that was 170 pixels per inch, which is pushing it a little bit. As size and viewing distance increases we can usually push a bit harder
For those who are fixated on 300 pixels per printed inch its 140MP for A0, 70 for A1, 35 for A2, and 18 for A3, and 9 for A4.

---------- Post added 06-01-23 at 06:39 AM ----------



Be careful of simplistic assumptions on cropping. TLDR You can increase the crop factor but not as much as you might think

Go back far enough and I think the first mass market full frame DSLR was ~12 MP. With 12MP we could get a decent amount of detail. For illustration I'm going to imagine a lens such that 12MP gets half the detail in the lens's image or if you're a glass half empty person, we lose 1/2.
We double the res to 24, and we plainly don't get a perfect recording of 100% of what is in the image, instead of losing 1/2 we lose 1/4
We double again (48), and now instead of losing 1/4 we lose 1/8th
So we've gone 50%, 75%, 87.5% - 48 to 96 would take us to 93.75% - lets say for round numbers 60MP gives us 90%
If 12MP enough we can crop 60 down to 12, right ? No so fast! If the problem was the print looked like a mosaic for lack of pixels, then maybe, but a 12 from 60 crop only has 1/5th of 90% of the lens detail - 18% When we used 12MP for the whole image we had 50% of the detail.

We might be able to crop 12 down to 8 and have 1/3 of the lens detail and still make a decent print. But to still have 33% from our 90% / 60MP we need to keep 22MP - we can crop twice as hard with 5x the pixels.

I’m less than convinced this is a reasonable explanation. It works as math but in practice the crop mode of FF sensors is compared directly to apsc sensors. Additionally when cropping I’m not trying to preserve the entire detail captured in any case. In practical use I have seen that I can crop quite a bit from 42mp and produce an excellent print. I can also crop more from a 24mp apsc file than a 16mp file. The % gain isn’t really relevant.

[James O'Neill]

I’m less than convinced this is a reasonable explanation. It works as math but in practice the crop mode of FF sensors is compared directly to apsc sensors. Additionally when cropping I’m not trying to preserve the entire detail captured in any case. In practical use I have seen that I can crop quite a bit from 42mp and produce an excellent print. I can also crop more from a 24mp apsc file than a 16mp file. The % gain isn’t really relevant.

My main thing is yes can crop more the more detail you have, but don't use final pixel count as sole criterion.
5MP cropped from 6MP has more in it than 5MP cropped from 24. But with 6MP you might need to keep 5/6ths of the image with, 24MP you might only need to keep 1/2.

You can't get more detail in the file you capture than was in the image the lens laid down. The more pixels you have the closer you get, but you need an infinite number of pixels to get 100%, and law of diminishing returns applies - you get a little more detail in the file spread over a lot more pixels. So all of 10mp capture makes a better print than 1/4 of a 40MP one.

Or put another way. If I take a 1mm x 1.5mm section an image from my DFA* 85 and blow it up to 1000x1500mm (40x60") I'm going to see the limitations of the lens, even if some future sensor gives me tens of megapixels for this tiny area. On the other hand if I take 20mm x 30mm and blow it up to the same size, I might notice if I have an ancient senor with too few pixels, but I'm not going to be lens-limited.

[UncleVanya]

My main thing is yes can crop more the more detail you have, but don't use final pixel count as sole criterion.
5MP cropped from 6MP has more in it than 5MP cropped from 24. But with 6MP you might need to keep 5/6ths of the image with, 24MP you might only need to keep 1/2.

You can't get more detail in the file you capture than was in the image the lens laid down. The more pixels you have the closer you get, but you need an infinite number of pixels to get 100%, and law of diminishing returns applies - you get a little more detail in the file spread over a lot more pixels. So all of 10mp capture makes a better print than 1/4 of a 40MP one.

Or put another way. If I take a 1mm x 1.5mm section an image from my DFA* 85 and blow it up to 1000x1500mm (40x60") I'm going to see the limitations of the lens, even if some future sensor gives me tens of megapixels for this tiny area. On the other hand if I take 20mm x 30mm and blow it up to the same size, I might notice if I have an ancient senor with too few pixels, but I'm not going to be lens-limited.

This I will agree with to a degree. But cropping to apsc isn’t any different that shooting at apsc. So there are limits to the principles in play. (Assuming a ff lens).

[repaap]

Yup, not much to add at here. I did originally buy Black magic 4K to be able to get great video(budget friendly) and keep on takin photos with K-1. Then I did update to Panasonic S5 to get more of ’hybrid’ as well as silent shutter for shooting performances/ect. Then I sold Panasonic and BMPCC4K to get Canon R5C. I wanted to get their RF 5.2 F2.8 L dual FE for 3D 180 VR material. I’m loving the Canon for all kind of hybrid work and all that. It really is very good camera. Had to sacrifice also quite a bit of my Pentax gear in process.

I happen to like the idea of 2 systems. As I have my history and all with Pentax. And I do enjoy the process of taking photos with it. I feel like I’m more in controll and it is more creative work. Than let’s say with Canon R5C which is very practical and you can see what you will get(kind of, not really) . 45 MP is plenty. Already 36 with K-1 was as well as 26 from K-3III ect. This should not be any kind of problem with modern cameras.

More so it is what do you gain with ’jumping the ship’ . If video is where you want to go, then actually very high megapixel FF might not be the best choise unless it has really been designed for it(R5C even has some ’jello’problems which are fine compared to many other). Then again, what is enough, like really. This is actually a thing which will also multiply it self just like that print thing just did. Gear you have already, might actually bealready good enough. Unless you want 2 cameras set up.

I quess what I wanted to say, for EVF experience and perhaps for higher MP and better AF go for it. For video, you might already have something what is good enough. Unless you really need pro video, and for that you need to really look lower MP offerings from Sony… my 2 cents.

---------- Post added 06-01-23 at 21:55 ----------

I think that even 'this' forum is opening up for -other- brands now a days as there are plenty of people with different brands and still shooting, or used to shoot with Pentax. That used to be quite hostile to 'jump ship' which is all in all dated phrase. really it is 2023. There are plenty of guys coming back too as well as new members. Dunno if this should be some how highlighted more? and dunno if this is that right thead, but as I did read your sentence it seems to me that this has been in peoples minds.


Pentax forums is a great place to find knowledge about Pentax and photography and find many groups and opportunities to find even new friends with similar minds. As well as it is world wide network(I have been visited by person from Australia(I'm at Finland my self).


side track, and will stop it here. But I'm just saying. . . back to jumping ship thread.

I think others have covered the question of this specific camera fairly comprehensively, at least without additional context, so I'll refrain from adding more there.

What I will try to talk you out of is leaving the forum in case you leave Pentax. We're embracing that a lot of folks move on (adapting lenses here and there as needed, or simply adding a second system), so you'll be able get get the same great advice in sections dedicated to other brands, and of course you'll continue to be able to share photos as always, as we have no brand restrictions in most threads

[StiffLegged]

...For those who are fixated on 300 pixels per printed inch its 140MP for A0, 70 for A1, 35 for A2, and 18 for A3, and 9 for A4....

This is the exact reason I stopped daydreaming about jumping ship for a high-resolution FF mirrorless with a set of uber-modern glass. I'm not going to print above A3 because I don't have the real estate to display bigger prints without complaints from the management. I already have the glass I really need, some day I'll get a Katie for better DR and high-ISO performance than the K7 which otherwise serves me perfectly well.

Your mileage may vary and that's fine.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[biz-engineer]

My main thing is yes can crop more the more detail you have, but don't use final pixel count as sole criterion.5MP cropped from 6MP has more in it than 5MP cropped from 24. But with 6MP you might need to keep 5/6ths of the image with, 24MP you might only need to keep 1/2.You can't get more detail in the file you capture than was in the image the lens laid down. The more pixels you have the closer you get, but you need an infinite number of pixels to get 100%, and law of diminishing returns applies

The pixel resolution has variable and non linear value attached to it depending on the end-result.

1) Subject matter: Macro images can print significantly larger at lower pixel count. Image captured with a micro 4/3 camera, consumer macro lens , can be printed really large. Landscape with foreground, middle ground, background is much more demanding.

2) End-use of the prints:
Appreciation of print size isn't linear vs size. A lot of the end-use of pictures is under A3. A2 is kinda odd size, too large for books, rather small as poster, and yet A2+ is what all full frame format are capable of as standard. BTW, the largest volume of poster sized photo prints in Europe is 50x70cm or 50x75cm and also the lowest cost per square cm printed. A1 is the minimum size officially known as poster for wall display. A0 (120x80cm) is commercial, used for presentations and advertisements, at that size and depending on subject matter we prefer production from a medium format camera. From the point of view of the end-use of images, full frame is an odd format, it's a compromise, overkill for magazines, books, and a stretch for large format commercial type prints.

Even more strange, is that a lot of people talk about camera specifications , megapixels etc, camera A is better than camera B, without ever connecting the specs to the requirements. Medium format talks even more interesting, guys buy 100Mpixels cameras that cost $6000, but print their pictures with an A3+ printer that cost $300, how to make sense of such choices? Well, there is a lot more marketing effort for cameras than there is for printers, printers are also completely forgotten, a thing of the past...

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-01-2023 at 01:38 PM.

[northcoastgreg]

Even more strange, is that a lot of people talk about camera specifications , megapixels etc, camera A is better than camera B, without ever connecting the specs to the requirements.

Very true. But what I found even more strange, if not outright shocking, is that hardly anyone is looking at images. If I was thinking about switching to some other brand, I would want to see images taken with cameras and lenses from that brand--and not just a few images, but hundreds of images, preferably taken by skilled photographers. And then I would compare those images to hundreds of images taken by skilled Pentax photographers and decide which one's I tended to prefer.

Now just out of curiosity, I've been looking at hundreds of images on flickr from various camera systems, and it seems apparent to me that, at least in the FF space, the problem of detail has been solved. FF cameras and lenses from all brands are capable of capturing more details than can be perceived by the human eyes in a print at normal viewing distance. So that leaves other aspects of image quality, mostly the stuff you can't measure, like color, the quality of the detail captured, the rendering, the ambiance, and so on and so forth. Now these are often subtle characteristics, difficult to perceive and analyze. But to the extent that one notices them, to that extent will you perceive differences in image qualities between various cameras and lenses and the companies that produce them. When I compare images taken with top Sony cameras and lenses to those taken by top Pentax cameras and lenses, I find the Sony images a bit bland in their color and their rendering a tad flat and clinical. These differences are of course subtle and some people won't even notice them.

Now the flip side of that is that those who believe that image quality primarily determined by the amount of detail captured, you could make a very convincing argument that Sony is better than Pentax. Sony features those 60 MP+ FF cameras, and Sony lenses tend to be sharper than Pentax lenses. Again, the differences are subtle and some may not notice any difference at all. But in the end everyone has to decide their own personal priorities in regards to image quality, and to match that decision with the brand that most accords to it.

There are of course considerations when comparing brands. Sony is an engineer centric company. They are the technological leader in camera tech for a reason. But the flip side of is that they really don't have a long tradition in cameras, and this leads to gear that, while technologically stunning, is perhaps not so photographer friendly. Pentax on the other hand is a brand with not only a long history in photography, but many of camera and lens designers are active photographers themselves. This leads to gear that's more photography friendly, but because of a dearth of R&D funding, Pentax is dead last in technology. So what's more important for one's photography: gear designed by photographers for photographers---or gear that, while lacking the nuances that makes for a great camera from a photographer-centric point-of-view, nevertheless features loads of cutting edge technology? Again, the differences are subtle. It's not like the technology in Pentax cameras is bad or that Sony cameras are unusable. But depending on one's priorities, one brand may be more suitable than the other.

[UncleVanya]

Now just out of curiosity, I've been looking at hundreds of images on flickr from various camera systems, and it seems apparent to me that, at least in the FF space, the problem of detail has been solved. FF cameras and lenses from all brands are capable of capturing more details than can be perceived by the human eyes in a print at normal viewing distance. So that leaves other aspects of image quality, mostly the stuff you can't measure, like color, the quality of the detail captured, the rendering, the ambiance, and so on and so forth. Now these are often subtle characteristics, difficult to perceive and analyze. But to the extent that one notices them, to that extent will you perceive differences in image qualities between various cameras and lenses and the companies that produce them. When I compare images taken with top Sony cameras and lenses to those taken by top Pentax cameras and lenses, I find the Sony images a bit bland in their color and their rendering a tad flat and clinical. These differences are of course subtle and some people won't even notice them.

Personally I think some of that is the high number of Sony users who are obsessed with sharpness. This leads to posting shots that might not be worth posting “but hey, they are sharp”.

I look at my own shots and I done see a qualitative difference between the Sony and the Pentax gear. Not when comparing close situations. Granted I don’t own a d fa* 70-200 to compare to the FE 70-200 GM. I don’t own a k-1. I also don’t own the latest GM II lens from Sony. But on my KP the DA* 50-135 is a great combo along with many other lenses. The real fun has been shooting Pentax lenses on my Sony and having people stunned that it’s a Pentax lens. The silliness of brand bashing.

Truth is sharpness is over rated.

DSC00304 (1)_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

DSC00167_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

DSC00470_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

---------- Post added 06-02-23 at 04:32 PM ----------

To pull this back to the op’s question. Notice that while these were taken with a 42mp Sony - one was using a lens from the early days of autofocus (k mount Vivitar self contained autofocus lens) another (FE 24-105/4) was fogged, and the last was distorted by reflections on water and used an old Sony A mount 70-300. The mp total is not that important. It’s another tool. You can do neat things with more mp (downsample for noise reduction, crop, print massive wall sized images and get closer than you should) but mostly you should shoot what works for you.

For me Sony was a gateway to spending time with my dad. He’s not shooting ff anymore and that’s not a factor. Now I have to decide what to do. I like both. I have both. Sigh. I hate duplication.

[vector]

Truth is sharpness is over rated.

Here are 3 different 50mm lenses. One is the FA 50 F1.4 wide open, one is the DFA*50 wide open and one is the Nikon Z 50 at F4. At normal viewing no one cares which is which nor can tell that the DFA* is notably sharper than the FA50 wide open when pixel peeping. The image composition and colours matter more.




The super tele I am shooting with most is the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary which by all tests is the bottom of the sharpness list for current production super tele lenses. I think it does a fine job but compared to my K3MarkIII with the DfA*300+TC that I was shooting before, the change in photos is a slightly shallower depth of field (FF vs APSC) and higher resolution (26 vs 45mpix). It's really not a lot. Sharpness is not factoring in. The benefits outside of image quality are that stabilized tele lenses are nice to use and the AF is more consistent which I attribute heavily to the stabilized lens helping to hold the AF point on the bird.



And for good measure here is the K3III with 300+TC

[UncleVanya]

Here are 3 different 50mm lenses. One is the FA 50 F1.4 wide open, one is the DFA*50 wide open and one is the Nikon Z 50 at F4. At normal viewing no one cares which is which nor can tell that the DFA* is notably sharper than the FA50 wide open when pixel peeping. The image composition and colours matter more.




The super tele I am shooting with most is the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary which by all tests is the bottom of the sharpness list for current production super tele lenses. I think it does a fine job but compared to my K3MarkIII with the DfA*300+TC that I was shooting before, the change in photos is a slightly shallower depth of field (FF vs APSC) and higher resolution (26 vs 45mpix). It's really not a lot. Sharpness is not factoring in. The benefits outside of image quality are that stabilized tele lenses are nice to use and the AF is more consistent which I attribute heavily to the stabilized lens helping to hold the AF point on the bird.



And for good measure here is the K3III with 300+TC

Agreed. The photographer makes the images work. A poor craftsman blames his tools - but an expert craftsman may excel even more with improved tools that offer access to things barred before. I’m not suggesting these is zero benefit to sharpness - I’m saying it’s far from the most important element.

There’s a website that posts the sharpest lenses for the a7riv (maybe v now) and many people swear by that list over everything else. I prefer more wholistic views of the gear.

My real point to the op is that only the op can decide what they want. But they need to be realistic about it and verify that the change offers a concrete benefit- even if only psychological.

[Mallee Boy]

.... (crow eater) ... that should have them wondering for awhile

To the Op, if you want any heads up on printing, drop me a line. Have printed on HP Designjet Z3200 44 & 24 inch, for club, professional and commercial purposes.
I have shot work with K3 . K3ii. K3iii (and that camera is a giant step up from K3ii) & K1ii.
I will not buy into the "jumping ship" thing other than to say some years ago I purchased a Nikon D800 .... and came back to Pentax and Limited series lenses.
Cheers

[biz-engineer]

If I was thinking about switching to some other brand, I would want to see images taken with cameras and lenses from that brand--and not just a few images, but hundreds of images, preferably taken by skilled photographers. And then I would compare those images to hundreds of images taken by skilled Pentax photographers and decide which one's I tended to prefer.

When i did such comparisons, I found that Canon and Sony had the best pictures, but then realized about the effect of selection among many. What you see online is the result of a Darwin fittest selection process on pictures, you don't see all the crappy pictures that were deleted, and this is also something that may discourage beginner photographers when they compare their shots with shots displayed online. Do you realize that the award winning shots chosen to be displayed online are the very very best shots highly post-processing out of a million shots that never made it out of their SD card. You can't compare Pentax to Canon, because when Canon shot selection start from a 1 000 000 exposures, Pentax start from a 30 000 exposures, the number of canon pictures awarded has nothing to do with how good or bad are canon cameras.

---------- Post added 03-06-23 at 08:40 ----------

Truth is sharpness is over rated.

Sharpness and resolution are largely over-rated, especially when most pictures are displayed on 4K displays. Some years ago, we made a poll about who print and print sized. If I remember correctly, only about less than 10 % of photographers do print, and less than 2 % print larger than 16x24".
I print either 8x10" or 24x36" minimum size for posters. For all 8x10" or electronic display, my K1 is overkill already and I've already printed high quality 20x30" from K3 files. But for for 24x36" and larger, I need all the K1 can give and I'd take more, entering the realm of medium format type prints.

---------- Post added 03-06-23 at 08:43 ----------

The benefits outside of image quality are that stabilized tele lenses are nice to use and the AF is more consistent which I attribute heavily to the stabilized lens helping to hold the AF point on the bird.

Focus accuracy largely outweigh megapixels. Between a miss-focused 50Mpixels shot and a perfectly well focused 24Mpixels shot, I take the 24Mpixels shot any time and it will even print larger than the miss-focused 50Mpix image without looking bad.

[Lord Lucan]

If I was thinking about switching to some other brand, I would want to see images taken with cameras and lenses from that brand--and not just a few images, but hundreds of images, preferably taken by skilled photographers.

If you want to compare camera and lens models and brands you should look at the results from a test chart, preferably the original of which you have in hand. Looking at "real life" images is open to being influenced by composition, taste, and the skill of the taker - compositions, tastes and skills which are probably different from your own. Whether minor differences revealed by a test chart matter for your puposes is then up to you to judge, but all the information is there - sharpness, colour cast, aberrations, and whatever.

I know some people say "But test charts are not real life photos!" but to me that is like saying that you are not worried about the strength of your house foundations because they are normally out of sight.

[rpjallan]

If you want to compare camera and lens models and brands you should look at the results from a test chart

That's ok to a degree but test charts are mainly a lens thing really. I'm not too bothered about colour rendering or noise at this stage. I have downloaded a heap RAW images from the A7RV including test charts. Having said that, I don't think Flickr is the best place to find that info. And I want to be comparing them to photos I have taken with my Pentax! I think I am skilled enough.

@Mallee Boy, thanks for the offer but I think I have got my head around the whole printing thing - after all, I have been doing it for over 25 years. And darkroom printing before that, which is much more difficult.

@UncleVanya, I use MoviePro on my I phone but it still doesn't give nearly as much control as I have with my Sony RX100 or my K-3ii.

@gatorguy, you may have 3 decades of experience in the printing industry but resolution doesn't just get dumped in the printing process. Maybe you need to reword that.