Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-19-2009, 06:39 PM   #46
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
(snip) In one time comparing with the nikon D300, We was look how fine details the camera could shown. 14,6 vs 12mp (snip)

(snip) So do we have any pentax lenses that can match the high resolution that pentax k20d have? or do we have to accept that the 2,6 mp more that pentax have just is a waiste and only fills your memorycard and ur computer-memory, and give us more noise? (snip)

I don't understand the point of your message, Emil. I purchased a higher megapixel camera to help me produce large prints with less interpolation, and to offer me greater croppinng options with smaller prints. In what way does your 12mp Nikon example help me do that better than the 14.6mp Pentax? If it doesn't, it's pretty clear the extra pixels provided by the Pentax isn't just a waste as you claim above.

stewart

01-19-2009, 06:45 PM   #47
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
(snip) It's one teqnice shot agains one ISO board and then look very closeup to see how fine details the camera can capture. The number is a number to explain it. (snip)

Canon 40d= 2100-2200
Sony A900= 3100-3200
Canon 50D= 2600-2600
Canon 5d mark II= 3400-3500
Pentax k20d=2550-2600
Sony A700= 2450-2500 (snip)

Huh? I find it extremely difficult to believe you studied the several megapixels of these various cameras to determine the differences or lack thereof in the fine details - enough to assign actual numbers to each. Such a project would require several people working several weeks, with several more working almost as long to verify their findings.

stewart
01-19-2009, 07:51 PM   #48
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
Well, it's hard to explain. It's one teqnice shot agains one ISO board and then look very closeup to see how fine details the camera can capture.
The number is a number to explain it.
It's some sorts of image lines...horezontal and vertical

If this don't say you much I can give you any examples. (I don't remember exactly but more or less)

You need like 150 more or less to see any differens in a A3+ print.

Canon 40d= 2100-2200
Sony A900= 3100-3200
Canon 50D= 2600-2600
Canon 5d mark II= 3400-3500
Pentax k20d=2550-2600
Sony A700= 2450-2500

Anyting like this.

higher number=Can show finer details

This was taken by very expensive optiks from the manufactors

The maximum of APS-C seams to be 2600-2650 or similar.

conclusions?

Regards Emil
Careful w/ your numbers... they can mis-lead.......
LP/PH: line widths per picture height is the spatial frequency unit we use to describe a camera. LP/PH is an excellent camera measurement unit because it takes into account the picture height, as long as the ISO 12233 chart fills the frame during capture. Unlike an APS sized sensor, a full frame camera (with the same lens) would have to be closer to the chart, as in the real world. Therefore the full frame camera has an advantage in the LP/PH results.
KammaGamma How we test resolving power
01-20-2009, 12:15 AM   #49
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gnesta, Sweden
Posts: 373
Original Poster
Hello Everyone

Hi!

How many times i have to say that the k20d is a fantastic camera?? Everytime I
start one discussion about Cameras en general (in this example k20d and nikon d300) much people seams to think that I don't like the image quality of the k20d.

I really do. The pentax k20d have one of the best image quality on the semi-pro camera market today, together with D300, and 50d. It's exelent.

The intressting part is that Nikon D300 and k20d can show the same details even if pentax have more pixels, showing that there are so much more behind a good sensor then "only" pixels.
Think about if pentax could press even more sharpness out of the sensor? It could win the other brands in case of image-details/quality by miles!

The nikon D300 have extremly low noise and it could be becasue of it, that it can show the same image quality that pentax k20d even if it have less pixels.

In the other hand pentax noise is fantastic keeping details on high ISO...Comparing to the other DSLR on the market.

So this is not speaking bad about pentax or k20d. It's a intressting discussion about pixels. Everyone who don't gets it, (don't have to explain it again) don't have to answer this thread

The point that i try to tell is that we should try to press out the most from the k20d 14,6Mp before we start to beg for a 18MP APS-C. The 14,6 sensor of samsung still have so much to give us!

"Too high resolution?" means a question. Not a statement

Regards Emil

01-20-2009, 12:23 AM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gnesta, Sweden
Posts: 373
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
I don't understand the point of your message, Emil. I purchased a higher megapixel camera to help me produce large prints with less interpolation, and to offer me greater croppinng options with smaller prints. In what way does your 12mp Nikon example help me do that better than the 14.6mp Pentax? If it doesn't, it's pretty clear the extra pixels provided by the Pentax isn't just a waste as you claim above.

stewart
,

Hi Stewart!

In this case the pixels are not a case of waiste You need large prints, but the question is if amatur photographers needs huge prints (A1+)?
Anybody but not everybody Then the pixels become a waist, becasue much
pixels don't only gives you good things. More harddrive, memory cards, shot capacity (because of the buffert), more noise ect ect

About the Numbers I said. I didn't do the test! (I wrote wrong) I was with a grķup that works on a magazine that tests lenses and cameras and they was do the test...but the test have been done and the results was more or less like this....I know that you can't compare APS-C and 35mm, but still it's intressting

Good post anyway

Regards
Emil
01-20-2009, 12:33 AM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gnesta, Sweden
Posts: 373
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Sorry Steve but for the TS to indulge in pseudo gear comparisons when it is not even clear that he has actually owned or used a DSLR sounds like a case of getting ahead of himself. My advise is practical because photography is essentially a skill/creative based activity, but as a photography-student, this should be painfully obvious to the TS. One may have the best gear on paper but if one can't shoot for nuts, what's the point of indulging in such pointless conjecture.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/46075-hello-all-tr...entusiast.html
Creampuff. This is a different thread and link to a my first thread that we all have behind us (I apologized and it's over now), so don't digg too deep to find arguments for the moment.

Answer to you I don't own a DSLR on my own. I have a lot of friends who photographs and I use to borrow their gear anytime, but most look how they shot and what they speak about in the DSLR. I shot film as i told you, but I know how to handle a digital gear too

Im with you...shooting is the important! just because of that, this thread is a discussion about pixels and sensors. Not critic at pentaxians nor me! ok?

Regards Emil
01-20-2009, 01:15 AM   #52
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by betaPhoto Quote
Wow!!! Nice shot....

What lens, aperature, shutter speed. What setting is noise reduction on or is it off, and how much shapening is done...
I'd love to know.
Shutter speed - 1/160
ISO - 400
Noise reduction - off
Tripod mounted - I always shoot with a tripod
Aperture - fixed at F/7

Sharpening - I use 3 PP sharpening programs either singly or in combination they all have their strengths and weakness'
a. Focal Blade sharpens by edge or surface or both. Good for aggressive sharpening.
b. Nik Sharpener Pro sharpens by selected colors. Tends to be very subtle and natural looking.
c. Power Retouch sharpens by tonal range (light, midtone, dark,) and by selected brightness and color range.
I think it's fair to say I have PP sharpening down to a black art.

Sometimes, when I'm done sharpening, the judicious use of Neat Image can improve the image further.

Lens - this is where I'm cheating a bit. I don't use conventional photo lens' but high quality astro scopes. In this case I used a very high quality diffraction limited 3 element APO objective using Schott (Zeiss) fluorite CaF2 glass at 620mm FL. This setup has on axis resolution to burn compared to a conventional telephoto with virtually no CA and can easily keep up with the K20D sensor. The importance of the quality of the glass can't be over-estimated when doing extreme crops of images taken at high magnifications.

Also I always manual focus - I have no choice but I would anyway. AF does not cut it when trying to shot birds in a complex 3D environment with branches all around the bird. Also at high magnifications I want to select exactly where the plane of focus is on the bird. Sometimes on the eyes, sometime on the flanks and often on the feet.

Enough geartalk.

Last edited by wildman; 01-20-2009 at 03:26 AM.
01-20-2009, 01:22 AM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gnesta, Sweden
Posts: 373
Original Poster
Great shot!! where did you take it? in the garden or free nature?

Regards Emil

01-20-2009, 03:02 AM   #54
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,484
One possible reason why some people feel that the images of the K20 look somewhat softer than those of the K10 is
that they look at the images at the 100% view on the screen!

But 100% is something different for the two cameras since the K20 has 14.6 MP and the k10 has only 10 MP.
To compare adequately you should look at the images in such a way that an object has the same size in both images.
01-20-2009, 03:08 AM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gnesta, Sweden
Posts: 373
Original Poster
Yeah that is true But in this case we all know that the k20d sensor from samsung is a lot better comparing to the k10d sensor
01-20-2009, 04:11 AM   #56
Forum Member
crispy0009's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Palm Beach Gardens, FLORIDA
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by blende8 Quote
One possible reason why some people feel that the images of the K20 look somewhat softer than those of the K10 is
that they look at the images at the 100% view on the screen!

But 100% is something different for the two cameras since the K20 has 14.6 MP and the k10 has only 10 MP.
To compare adequately you should look at the images in such a way that an object has the same size in both images.


Oh word!!!
01-20-2009, 06:42 AM   #57
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
,

Hi Stewart!

In this case the pixels are not a case of waiste You need large prints, but the question is if amatur photographers needs huge prints (A1+)?
Anybody but not everybody Then the pixels become a waist, becasue much
pixels don't only gives you good things. More harddrive, memory cards, shot capacity (because of the buffert), more noise ect ect

Regards
Emil
My "professional work" usually ends up as prints no larger than 8x10, sometimes 11x14, rarely larger.
My "amateur work" (that which I do for myself rather than someone else) is rarely printed smaller than 11x14, and often larger.

Don't ever think that professional work is less demanding than amateur. Professionals need to produce a salable product, and if they want to make money, they quickly learn what is salable and stop there.
Amateurs don't have the same constrictions, and are generally the ones who push the envelope of the technology, and are the ones who demand ever higher "IQ".
01-20-2009, 11:09 AM   #58
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
(snip) Don't ever think that professional work is less demanding than amateur. Professionals need to produce a salable product, and if they want to make money, they quickly learn what is salable and stop there. Amateurs don't have the same constrictions, and are generally the ones who push the envelope of the technology, and are the ones who demand ever higher "IQ".

You're entirely correct in pointing out the differences between the pro and amateur, Wheatfield. Clients are often looking for useable images based almost entirely on visible content. They rarely enlarge an image several hundred times, or pull out a magnifying glass with prints, to study the fine details. Those details only become an issue when deciding if they're are good enough for their needs. Since I wouldn't be in business very long if that wasn't the case, the details are often quickly dismissed with renewed emphasis on the content.

However, I'd go even further and say this is more an issue of our own images versus someone's else's images. When I look at someone's else's images, I'm almost immediately drawn to the content (unless the details are blatently distracting). But I know what the content is with my images, so will more quickly focus on the details - everything from image sharpness to subject hand or foot position (even strands of hair). Thus, I'm nearly always far more critical of my own images than others might be.

In recent years, I've tried to get away from that (within reason, of course) and focus much more on the content of my images. That philosophy has considerably increased the satisfaction with both my photography and my photo equipment.

stewart
01-20-2009, 03:25 PM   #59
Site Supporter
pentaxmz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 659
QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
higher resolutions are generally there for people who want to make big prints... its really as simple as that..
Not exactly!

Greater resolution allows a photographer to crop without sacrificing a lot.

14MP? I want more pixels! Although at 14MP with the K20D, we are now finally in the realm of 35mm film (less the dynamic range but that what HDR photography is for).

The original poster seems to miss this point.

14MP is also enough 'pixelage' to print virtually any sized print (even billboard sized with appropriate splining). But even a 10MP camera can do that.
01-20-2009, 04:03 PM   #60
Site Supporter
pentaxmz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 659
QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
Hi!

How many times i have to say that the k20d is a fantastic camera?? Everytime I
start one discussion about Cameras en general (in this example k20d and nikon d300) much people seams to think that I don't like the image quality of the k20d.
I swear, some Pentax owners are 'almost' fanatical about their cameras and criticism is met with great deal of hostility. There is little worse that sort of dogmatic cult-like mentality!

Anyhow, pay no attention to them (unless it's a moderator ). It is otherwise a free forum and you can diss any camera (even the K20D) all you want but just try to be factual (otherwise, I might get mad too kidding! ).

But in answer to your question.... there is simply never 'too high' a resolution, that is, until the sensor exceeds the theoretical limit of resolving power of the lens. I suspect that all but the worst of lenses are well below that threshold with the K20D sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
I really do. The pentax k20d have one of the best image quality on the semi-pro camera market today, together with D300, and 50d.
Not really! Comparing similar competing products, Nikon and Canon will usually produce better results.

There is a reason why, all but the most dogmatic Pentax owners, would dump Pentax for Canon or Nikon, if money were no object. Please don't misunderstand, I really do enjoy most of what the K20D offers but I'm not fooling myself about its faults.

QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
The intressting part is that Nikon D300 and k20d can show the same details even if pentax have more pixels, showing that there are so much more behind a good sensor then "only" pixels.
I am suspicious about what lenses were used. I suspect the outcome was a result of unfair comparison of lenses and not the sensor. Be careful to consider that there might be a bias with the reviewer.

QuoteOriginally posted by losecontrol Quote
In the other hand pentax noise is fantastic keeping details on high ISO...Comparing to the other DSLR on the market.
I respectfully disagree with that statement.

I wish it were true but I know, for fact, that most (or all) Canon DSLRs have much lower noise than the Pentax K20D and I believe this is also true of many of the Nikon DSLRs. Low noise is especially important for Astro photographers (long exposures and higher ISOs) and that is why the Canons (such as the 20 - 50Ds) are really the ONLY choice! Canon even has a website dedicated for this type of photography!

And the Pentax K20D? Hell, this damn camera is forced to do a DFS for every friggen photo taken! That means if you take a 20 minute photo, you must wait an additional 20 minutes before taking the next photo. I suspect that Pentax's imaging hardware has some serious noise problems, otherwise Pentax would have corrected this problem in the last firmware upgrade.

Finally, it is important to remember that not only is the number of pixels important but also the size of each pixel. The larger the pixel size, the greater its individual sensitivity and lower the noise. This is a current fact and may no longer be true as imaging technology progresses.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, d300, dslr, k20d, lenses, mp, nikon, pentax, people, photography, resolution, result, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting High Resolution for Large Canvas Art menessie Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 30 02-26-2013 07:53 AM
Wanting to create high resolution slideshow for emailing lectrolink Photographic Technique 9 08-14-2010 02:10 PM
645D: high resolution pictures Reti13 Pentax Medium Format 13 05-26-2010 04:59 AM
Offering pritnts vs high resolution photos on disc? creoleart Photographic Industry and Professionals 28 08-16-2009 06:54 PM
What makes a clear high resolution lens zoeybird Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-11-2009 09:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top