Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-23-2009, 02:42 AM   #31
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Oh, I see you don't want to play anymore, because somewhere in my jumble I proved you wrong.

Please though, I'm still waiting. My camera is obviously wrong by you, even though it will always satisfy my needs as long as I have it and I have yet to have a gripe about it. Please tell me why.

02-23-2009, 03:21 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,036
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
6MP is just too little by today's minimum standard
"Today's minimum standard" doesn't exist.
If you don't want to print poster size and don't want to crop too much, 6MP are plenty. The K100D is a very capable camera and more than sufficient for many people.


QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
You *are* aware that more pixels means more noise for the same sensor size & technology, aren't you?
Noise correlates with sensor size but not with pixel density. If you increase the number of pixels and keep the sensor size the same each individual pixel of the higher pixel density will have worse noise performance but averaged over the whole image, the images of the higher pixel density sensor will have the same noise (everything else being equal) and the finer grained noise will be more pleasant to look at. Having said that, most of the time "everything else" won't be "equal". The sensor technologies between K100D and K-m are different. The K100D uses the tried and tested SONY 6MP sensor, that is also used in the Nikon D40. It's a good one.


QuoteOriginally posted by bx6768 Quote
How about K100D as my first Pentax DSLR?
If you can find the "super" variant, you'll be able to use SDM lenses. The new DA 55mm, for example, is SDM only. But there are plenty of screw drive AF lenses to choose from.

With respect to the K-m (K2000): Check whether you like a really small camera (K-m) or one that fits well into a man's hands (K100). The K100 has a top LCD display which I find very handy and, to the best of my knowledge, is missing from the K-m. I also like the spread out AF sensors which help me to avoid recomposing after focussing or at least keep the movement to a minimum. I'm sure there are further differences between the cameras. Its worth checking which features float your boat and chose accordingly.
02-23-2009, 03:31 AM   #33
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,036
QuoteOriginally posted by bx6768 Quote
DA 40mm should be a good choose, if I only want one prime lens right now?
Depends on your shooting style. If you want the equivalent of a 50mm on 35mm film, you should get a lens around 33mm. If you want a lens that is technically "normal" (focal length = sensor size) you should get one around 28mm.

I like the Sigma 28mm/1.8. It is fast and has very good close focusing capabilities.

You'll get lot's of recommendations for the FA 50/1.4, which is a bargain for what it can do, but on APS-C it is a slightly odd focal length. Often too long for indoors and just a bit too short for classic portraits. I'd say there is a reason why the new DA 55/1.4 is a 55 not a 50. You'll still be able to use the FA50/1.4 for a lot of great applications but I would hesitate to chose it as my only prime.
02-23-2009, 03:43 AM   #34
James S
Guest




K100D is fine! Especially at the prices you can find it for!

I'd recommend the K100D + DA 40mm OR FA 50mm + DA 50-200 for a good kit. Add a Sigma 10-20mm later and you'll be rocking it!

Having said that if you can afford it look for a K200D on special (since it's discontinued.)

Perhaps RiceHigh should tell people who still buy new Nik*n D40/x cameras new in Australia which 'only' have 6mp that they must buy the latest and greatest camera because 6mp is a waste of money.

02-23-2009, 03:57 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
To a degree, but not to THAT degree. Now, if you started talking about resampling 10MP to 6MP and then comparing that to a native 6MP image, you would be making more sense.
Nope. I mean to view the 6MP and 10MP+ images on the same screen in full size, the difference is quite obvious to me. The higher resolution will give more "pops" for the objects and with more details seen too.
02-23-2009, 03:58 AM   #36
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
No it doesn't. That doesn't affect anything. Both images that appear the same size are the same size, regardless of pixel count.
02-23-2009, 03:59 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
"Today's minimum standard" doesn't exist.
If you don't want to print poster size and don't want to crop too much, 6MP are plenty. The K100D is a very capable camera and more than sufficient for many people.
Not really. That's not only size matters, but also the resolution in the prints, as I have illustrated a few posts earlier:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/499591-post17.html
02-23-2009, 04:32 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
Ricehigh, a year ago I did quite a bit of research on megapixels, precisely for the same reason that I'm worried 6mpix is not enough. Pretty much all sources says that megapixels only matter when you want to print bigger than the megapixel allows. For 6mp a 8x10" is often quoted as a conservative maximum size. I've seen a member here print a 24x36 image from his/her K100D. Another benefit that I find for higher megapixel during the one year I've been using my K100D is when I want to crop, but this does not happen too often if I compose properly.

Now, you're the first person that I met that stated that 10mp is inherently better than 6mp, how can you make such a claim, knowing that pretty much everyone else (on the internet) disagrees with you? Are you suggesting that during the year I haven't been researching on megapixels, printer and monitor technologies have changed so much that a difference that when 6mp vs 10mp put side to side, on a 1280x800 resolution monitor or 4"x6" print would show alot of difference that wasn't there a year ago?

The only thing K-M has going for it when pitted against K100D is its small size and better autofocus, with the megapixel as just something minor. The rest of the features (or lack thereof) is pretty much a downgrade. If I want to do pro work and print big, I'd get a K20 and upgrade from what I have (be it K100 or K-M), until I reach that stage, I don't think my K100 is inadequate.

Bottom line: If I have to choose 6mp vs 10 mp ONLY, of course I would take 10mp; but if I have to choose between K100D and a K-M, I'll take a K100D anyday. K100D being cheaper is only icing on the cake. If the OP so chooses to get a K-M though, it would still be a good choice. You can't go wrong with either, I just want to share my views.


Last edited by Andi Lo; 02-23-2009 at 04:41 AM.
02-23-2009, 05:24 AM   #39
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Newbury, England
Posts: 50
I have both a K100D and a Samsung GX-10 (K10D Clone).

The reasons for buying the GX-10 had very little to do with Mp count. Much more to do with ergonomics and buffer speed. Both the K100D and the GX-10 use the same "sized" sensor - but the GX-10/K10D has more pixels squeezed onto it. In good light and lower ISOs I would agree with Ricehigh that I can get more useful images - particularly of wildlife where for obvious reasons it's not always possible to frame the image to the optimum - I have to crop to get a reasonable size image of a bird/animal on a screen or print. Here the more pixels do help. But much of my photography doesn't need the extra pixels.

Going beyond ISO400 and the less densely packed pixels on the K100D beat the pants of my GX-10. There is much more leeway for exposure error on the K100D than on the GX-10 meaning that in poorer light I'm much more likely to get a "keeper" than with the GX-10 where the noise and banding becomes a real issue.

From what I have read the K20D/GX-20 have improved sensor technology that means that the available pixels are better behaved in higher ISOs. And taking Ricehigh's view it should be the K20D rather than the K10D or K-m that you should aim for. But of course that is silly. You need to go for the camera that suits your particular requirements at the price you can afford. If you can't afford a K-m or K10D then don't beat yourself up about it - the K100D is a very good introduction to DSLR photography.

And there are no HARD limits on what pixels you need to produce an acceptable large image. I still have some A3 (11.7" ◊ 16.5") prints I took with my old Fuji S5000 3mp camera that look fine with no sign of graininess in them at all. Even if a large image contains noise - whether it looks acceptable depends on how far back you will be viewing it.

Neil
02-23-2009, 05:24 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
"what people say"..

QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
Ricehigh, a year ago I did quite a bit of research on megapixels, precisely for the same reason that I'm worried 6mpix is not enough. Pretty much all sources says that megapixels only matter when you want to print bigger than the megapixel allows. For 6mp a 8x10" is often quoted as a conservative maximum size. I've seen a member here print a 24x36 image from his/her K100D. Another benefit that I find for higher megapixel during the one year I've been using my K100D is when I want to crop, but this does not happen too often if I compose properly.

Now, you're the first person that I met that stated that 10mp is inherently better than 6mp, how can you make such a claim, knowing that pretty much everyone else (on the internet) disagrees with you? Are you suggesting that during the year I haven't been researching on megapixels, printer and monitor technologies have changed so much that a difference that when 6mp vs 10mp put side to side, on a 1280x800 resolution monitor or 4"x6" print would show alot of difference that wasn't there a year ago?

The only thing K-M has going for it when pitted against K100D is its small size and better autofocus, with the megapixel as just something minor. The rest of the features (or lack thereof) is pretty much a downgrade. If I want to do pro work and print big, I'd get a K20 and upgrade from what I have (be it K100 or K-M), until I reach that stage, I don't think my K100 is inadequate.

Bottom line: If I have to choose 6mp vs 10 mp ONLY, of course I would take 10mp; but if I have to choose between K100D and a K-M, I'll take a K100D anyday. K100D being cheaper is only icing on the cake. If the OP so chooses to get a K-M though, it would still be a good choice. You can't go wrong with either, I just want to share my views.
I recalled when 2MP is the mainstream of Digital Camera when I used those DCs in 2001 and lurked around the net, people also claimed that 2MP is adequate for printing up to 8x10 or A4. So, where are those people now? :-)

And, its not about what people are (just) saying, it also needs some proof. As I have shown in a few posts back, the optimal maximum resolution of the 14.6MP K20D is just about 2400 dots per picture height as measured (by so many reviewers already). If you print it with a printer of a standard 300 dpi (not a very high resolution figure and setting, is it?), it prints only up to 8 inches vertically for all the dots to be filled up with meaningful information and data, so?

When 14.6MP just does its job for a 8 x 10 printout with 300 dpi, what's the point of "6MP is adequate" (I mean factually, scientifically and not emotionally).
02-23-2009, 05:54 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
Actually, it is. No one bothers printing anything at more than 300 dpi. Look at any offset printed image you might have lying around and I'll bet you any amount it's 300 at best. In REALITY, a large print made with 150 dpi or less will look great.
Of course one can always print in lower resolution and step backwards to view the prints but that's not the point I want to say. 300 dpi is not a very high printer resolution setting, but just standard. Fuji Frontier photo printers could output far higher resolution than 150 dpi you've mentioned and higher than the standard 300 dpi and so does a domestic HP deskjet or Canon bubble jet printer. Most HP color laserjets can output 600 dpi, especially for A3 models, so?
02-23-2009, 05:59 AM   #42
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,036
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
As I have shown in a few posts back, the optimal maximum resolution of the 14.6MP K20D is just about 2400 dots per picture height as measured (by so many reviewers already).
Could you point us to the findings of these reviewers? I'm interested in this matter. Falconeye seems to agree with me that when looking at a B&W test chart, you can reasonably assume 3120 LW/PH for the K20D.

QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
If you print it with a printer of a standard 300 dpi (not a very high resolution figure and setting, is it?
I've read somewhere (too lazy to dig it up right now) that 300dpi is plenty for a normal imagine. It also depends on the viewing distance. You wouldn't view a big poster with your nose pressed against it and large poster, to the best of my knowledge, are often printed with a lot less than 300dpi. Forum member benjikan reported of hugh prints made from his K20D. And this is professional work, not amateur standards.

I've recently done 15x10 prints from my K100D and they look fantastic. They may not satisfy your calculations but everyone I showed them agreed with me that they were great prints to look at.
02-23-2009, 06:05 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UmeŚ, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Of course one can always print in lower resolution and step backwards to view the prints but that's not the point I want to say. 300 dpi is not a very high printer resolution setting, but just standard. Fuji Frontier photo printers could output far higher resolution than 150 dpi you've mentioned and higher than the standard 300 dpi and so does a domestic HP deskjet or Canon bubble jet printer. Most HP color laserjets can output 600 dpi, especially for A3 models, so?
So you're comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't matter if your printer says it does 1440 dpi, it doesn't actually do 1440 dpi in the relevant sense. Read up: Color Printer Resolution

Again: NOTHING is ever printed at higher than 300 dpi in real-world applications. It doesn't happen.
02-23-2009, 06:17 AM   #44
Veteran Member
mickey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,073
I think the K100D is a good first choice of camera and a good buy into the Pentax system at the price it can be found.
6mp?
Well, the public might think that the higher the megapixels the better your pics will be...if only that was all we had to think about when getting good pics.
02-23-2009, 06:19 AM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Really??

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Could you point us to the findings of these reviewers? I'm interested in this matter. Falconeye seems to agree with me that when looking at a B&W test chart, you can reasonably assume 3120 LW/PH for the K20D.
3120 LW/PH ????!! K20D's native output image pixels is 4672 x 3104. Yes, 3104. How come it can get higher number? With Bayler's artifacts, it can by no means reach the theoretical 3104 limit, neither.

QuoteQuote:
I've read somewhere (too lazy to dig it up right now) that 300dpi is plenty for a normal imagine. It also depends on the viewing distance. You wouldn't view a big poster with your nose pressed against it and large poster, to the best of my knowledge, are often printed with a lot less than 300dpi.
Yes, but for a 8 x 10" print, it is not something that as big as you suppose. Nor the *printing* resolution will change with different viewing distance.
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, dslr, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Pentax User Whitepines Welcomes and Introductions 2 09-06-2010 11:42 AM
New Pentax User (almost) Markos007 Welcomes and Introductions 4 06-30-2010 10:14 AM
new pentax user tguy2006 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 06-13-2010 09:28 PM
New Pentax user suga Welcomes and Introductions 4 08-11-2009 02:56 AM
New pentax user from NJ!!! Senseriffic Welcomes and Introductions 3 02-02-2009 08:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 AM. | 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