I want to be a Pentax user

jct us101 · 02-22-2009, 11:29 PM

Along with costing so much more...

RiceHigh · 02-22-2009, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

6 megapixels is plenty.

Not really. Let's have some maths..

My Samsung thermal photo printer has a native resolution of 300 dpi, it is designed to print 4R photos. Suppose it can print in larger size, with a 6MP source picture, how large *should* it be printed?

6MP = 3000 x 2000 (but not true resolution owing to the Bayler's artifacts and other imperfection like jpeg loss and optical aberrations etc.)

Even assuming it has the "perfect" resolution in 3000 x 2000, you can get only 10" x 6.7" print at most. In reality, a 14.6MP K20D could produce *optimal* resolution of around 2,400 dots per picture height in real measurements (by various reviewers) which just means that at a standard 300 dpi printing resolution, it should not print more than 8" for a picture before "inadequacy" in resolution can be seen! So, if it is just 6M..?

jct us101 · 02-22-2009, 11:35 PM

RiceHigh, I have a 6 megapixel camera and it's plenty for me. So please tell me why I'm wrong.

Venturi · 02-22-2009, 11:35 PM

As usual, Rice, you are completely correct in every respect. All of these photos are just dreadful. I'm sure the photographers that made them are filled with shame and embarrassment for their "substandard" equipment...

Last edited by Venturi; 02-22-2009 at 11:37 PM. Reason: fix url

RiceHigh · 02-22-2009, 11:42 PM

But the problem is that technologies are always advancing. The K100D was marketed in 2006 and the K-m is marketed in 2009.

Its true if Pentax is to make a 6MP DSLR again in 2009, it will be with super low noise. But this will not happen as no one will make a 6MP DSLR again in 2009 and no one will probably buy it even they make one.

A good example is that the Canon 5D MkII is of around 21MP whilst the 5D MkI is of about 13MP but the MkII does have about 1 stop advantage in terms of noise level between different ISO speeds. The Nikon D700 is even better than the 5D MkII, since it has only about 12MPs.

Not until we compare stuff with the same technologies, it could not be meaningful..

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Originally posted by RiceHigh

6MP is just too little by today's minimum standard, frankly - even most P&S DCs start from 10MP.

And that's why they are noisier. You *are* aware that more pixels means more noise for the same sensor size & technology, aren't you? That's not to say the K200D is worse than the K100D - it isn't, really, by the time you view the images the same size. But it's also true that very few high pixel count camera produce cleaner images than the 6MP DSLR's.

RiceHigh · 02-22-2009, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

RiceHigh, I have a 6 megapixel camera and it's plenty for me. So please tell me why I'm wrong.

Explained above already.

RiceHigh · 02-22-2009, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Venturi

As usual, Rice, you are completely correct in every respect. All of these photos are just dreadful. I'm sure the photographers that made them are filled with shame and embarrassment for their "substandard" equipment...

Hey, pls don't take any of my technical views above as anything personal. Its just an open discussion on the technical stuff.

In fact, for all the excellent 6MP pictures you've shown, they can be much better and be printed in larger if they had more pixel counts - no conflict of any but only advantages here!

Andi Lo · 02-23-2009, 12:23 AM

OP, whether or not you think Ricehigh is right or not that K-M would be a better choice over the K100D (which I don't, due to cost and features comparison), please take a look at the link that Venturi posted and decide for yourself

K100D has been more of a camera that I can handle after one year of using it, and if you're just starting it will probably be the same for you. In fact this thread and the PPG link has reminded me not to lust after newer camera bodies yet since most equipments are probably better tools than I am a photographer. I got feelings of deja vu as well since pictures from the K100d are what made me decide on pentax a year ago.

Cheers,

RiceHigh · 02-23-2009, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

OP, whether or not you think Ricehigh is right or not that K-M would be a better choice over the K100D (which I don't, due to cost and features comparison), please take a look at the link that Venturi posted and decide for yourself

K100D has been more of a camera that I can handle after one year of using it, and if you're just starting it will probably be the same for you. In fact this thread and the PPG link has reminded me not to lust after newer camera bodies yet since most equipments are probably better tools than I am a photographer. I got feelings of deja vu as well since pictures from the K100d are what made me decide on pentax a year ago.

Cheers,

Andi, I generally agree with what you (and others) are trying to point out.

However, I would think more that a better tool will always be a better tool, the same photographer with a better tool will always produce better works!

A better tool will always help you to get more photo opportunities and makes better shots. In this case, the K-m has better and improved Auto White Balance, faster Auto Focus and better metering and so on just undoubtedly makes it a better tool!

Jasvox · 02-23-2009, 12:53 AM

I'd go with the KM, simply based on newer technology and the size..very packable. Either camera body is fine and either one should serve you well.

Jason

jct us101 · 02-23-2009, 01:18 AM

RiceHigh, I've had it with you. You're simply a joke. Just because something might be better now that makes what was avaliable before obsolete in terms of quality, that doesn't mean that you don't have a valid reason for using it. Why do people still use Kodak Brownies, or Polaroids? You can buy a digital camera that gives you nearly perfect photos, but in the process you've taken the important part entirely out of it, and that's the technique. What's the point of taking a 10mp photo snapshot that you can simply crop everything out of when you can have so much better of a photo with 6mp that you don't have to crop, but along with your technique included. I just realized none of this made any sense, but I don't really care.

Erik · 02-23-2009, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

In fact, the resolution difference can be clearly seen on a full screen (not full sized) picture displayed on a 19" monitor or larger.

So on your 19" monitor (probably with a resolution of 1280x1024 = 1.3 megapixels) you can somehow see a "clear" difference between a full screen 6 mp image and 10 a mp one? Interesting... Please PM me if interested in selling me a bag of whatever it is you're smoking.

RiceHigh · 02-23-2009, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by jct us101

RiceHigh, I've had it with you. You're simply a joke. Just because something might be better now that makes what was avaliable before obsolete in terms of quality, that doesn't mean that you don't have a valid reason for using it. Why do people still use Kodak Brownies, or Polaroids? You can buy a digital camera that gives you nearly perfect photos, but in the process you've taken the important part entirely out of it, and that's the technique. What's the point of taking a 10mp photo snapshot that you can simply crop everything out of when you can have so much better of a photo with 6mp that you don't have to crop, but along with your technique included. I just realized none of this made any sense, but I don't really care.

So, what's the problem of a newer and better camera and the conflicts arising from using such a camera in making good photos?

6M is too little in pixels by today's standard - especially when all the new buyers are having the *choice*. I have shown the maths already. If you don't agree, don't go it personal, just show your viewpoints or arguments, if any.

Unless you can learn how to respect others in your reply without attacking others personally, I shall not respond to your post in this thread further.

RiceHigh · 02-23-2009, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Erik

So on your 19" monitor (probably with a resolution of 1280x1024 = 1.3 megapixels) you can somehow see a "clear" difference between a full screen 6 mp image and 10 a mp one? Interesting... Please PM me if interested in selling me a bag of whatever it is you're smoking.

Yes, a source that is with much higher resolution and contain more picture information will always be better even it is downsampled - universal truth here. (not only for digital pictures but for all digital media and formats!)

Just believe it or not! (but I think it should not be too difficult for anyone to verify the truth..)

Erik · 02-23-2009, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

Yes, a source that is with much higher resolution and contain more picture information will always be better even it is downsampled - universal truth here (not only for digital pictures but for all digital media and formats!)

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.

02-22-2009, 11:33 PM	#17
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	6M is very little.. Originally posted by jct us101 6 megapixels is plenty. Not really. Let's have some maths.. My Samsung thermal photo printer has a native resolution of 300 dpi, it is designed to print 4R photos. Suppose it can print in larger size, with a 6MP source picture, how large should it be printed? 6MP = 3000 x 2000 (but not true resolution owing to the Bayler's artifacts and other imperfection like jpeg loss and optical aberrations etc.) Even assuming it has the "perfect" resolution in 3000 x 2000, you can get only 10" x 6.7" print at most. In reality, a 14.6MP K20D could produce optimal resolution of around 2,400 dots per picture height in real measurements (by various reviewers) which just means that at a standard 300 dpi printing resolution, it should not print more than 8" for a picture before "inadequacy" in resolution can be seen! So, if it is just 6M..?

02-22-2009, 11:42 PM	#20
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Not Correct.. But the problem is that technologies are always advancing. The K100D was marketed in 2006 and the K-m is marketed in 2009. Its true if Pentax is to make a 6MP DSLR again in 2009, it will be with super low noise. But this will not happen as no one will make a 6MP DSLR again in 2009 and no one will probably buy it even they make one. A good example is that the Canon 5D MkII is of around 21MP whilst the 5D MkI is of about 13MP but the MkII does have about 1 stop advantage in terms of noise level between different ISO speeds. The Nikon D700 is even better than the 5D MkII, since it has only about 12MPs. Not until we compare stuff with the same technologies, it could not be meaningful.. Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Originally posted by RiceHigh 6MP is just too little by today's minimum standard, frankly - even most P&S DCs start from 10MP. And that's why they are noisier. You are aware that more pixels means more noise for the same sensor size & technology, aren't you? That's not to say the K200D is worse than the K100D - it isn't, really, by the time you view the images the same size. But it's also true that very few high pixel count camera produce cleaner images than the 6MP DSLR's.

02-23-2009, 12:23 AM	#23
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	OP, whether or not you think Ricehigh is right or not that K-M would be a better choice over the K100D (which I don't, due to cost and features comparison), please take a look at the link that Venturi posted and decide for yourself K100D has been more of a camera that I can handle after one year of using it, and if you're just starting it will probably be the same for you. In fact this thread and the PPG link has reminded me not to lust after newer camera bodies yet since most equipments are probably better tools than I am a photographer. I got feelings of deja vu as well since pictures from the K100d are what made me decide on pentax a year ago. Cheers, Last edited by Andi Lo; 02-23-2009 at 12:31 AM.

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

02-22-2009, 11:29 PM	#16
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Along with costing so much more...

02-22-2009, 11:35 PM	#18
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	RiceHigh, I have a 6 megapixel camera and it's plenty for me. So please tell me why I'm wrong.

02-22-2009, 11:35 PM	#19
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	As usual, Rice, you are completely correct in every respect. All of these photos are just dreadful. I'm sure the photographers that made them are filled with shame and embarrassment for their "substandard" equipment... Last edited by Venturi; 02-22-2009 at 11:37 PM. Reason: fix url

02-22-2009, 11:43 PM	#21
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by jct us101 RiceHigh, I have a 6 megapixel camera and it's plenty for me. So please tell me why I'm wrong. Explained above already.

02-22-2009, 11:45 PM	#22
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by Venturi As usual, Rice, you are completely correct in every respect. All of these photos are just dreadful. I'm sure the photographers that made them are filled with shame and embarrassment for their "substandard" equipment... Hey, pls don't take any of my technical views above as anything personal. Its just an open discussion on the technical stuff. In fact, for all the excellent 6MP pictures you've shown, they can be much better and be printed in larger if they had more pixel counts - no conflict of any but only advantages here!

02-23-2009, 12:43 AM	#24
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by Andi Lo OP, whether or not you think Ricehigh is right or not that K-M would be a better choice over the K100D (which I don't, due to cost and features comparison), please take a look at the link that Venturi posted and decide for yourself K100D has been more of a camera that I can handle after one year of using it, and if you're just starting it will probably be the same for you. In fact this thread and the PPG link has reminded me not to lust after newer camera bodies yet since most equipments are probably better tools than I am a photographer. I got feelings of deja vu as well since pictures from the K100d are what made me decide on pentax a year ago. Cheers, Andi, I generally agree with what you (and others) are trying to point out. However, I would think more that a better tool will always be a better tool, the same photographer with a better tool will always produce better works! A better tool will always help you to get more photo opportunities and makes better shots. In this case, the K-m has better and improved Auto White Balance, faster Auto Focus and better metering and so on just undoubtedly makes it a better tool!

02-23-2009, 12:53 AM	#25
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	I'd go with the KM, simply based on newer technology and the size..very packable. Either camera body is fine and either one should serve you well. Jason

02-23-2009, 01:18 AM	#26
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	RiceHigh, I've had it with you. You're simply a joke. Just because something might be better now that makes what was avaliable before obsolete in terms of quality, that doesn't mean that you don't have a valid reason for using it. Why do people still use Kodak Brownies, or Polaroids? You can buy a digital camera that gives you nearly perfect photos, but in the process you've taken the important part entirely out of it, and that's the technique. What's the point of taking a 10mp photo snapshot that you can simply crop everything out of when you can have so much better of a photo with 6mp that you don't have to crop, but along with your technique included. I just realized none of this made any sense, but I don't really care.

02-23-2009, 02:26 AM	#27
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by RiceHigh In fact, the resolution difference can be clearly seen on a full screen (not full sized) picture displayed on a 19" monitor or larger. So on your 19" monitor (probably with a resolution of 1280x1024 = 1.3 megapixels) you can somehow see a "clear" difference between a full screen 6 mp image and 10 a mp one? Interesting... Please PM me if interested in selling me a bag of whatever it is you're smoking.

02-23-2009, 02:31 AM	#28
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by jct us101 RiceHigh, I've had it with you. You're simply a joke. Just because something might be better now that makes what was avaliable before obsolete in terms of quality, that doesn't mean that you don't have a valid reason for using it. Why do people still use Kodak Brownies, or Polaroids? You can buy a digital camera that gives you nearly perfect photos, but in the process you've taken the important part entirely out of it, and that's the technique. What's the point of taking a 10mp photo snapshot that you can simply crop everything out of when you can have so much better of a photo with 6mp that you don't have to crop, but along with your technique included. I just realized none of this made any sense, but I don't really care. So, what's the problem of a newer and better camera and the conflicts arising from using such a camera in making good photos? 6M is too little in pixels by today's standard - especially when all the new buyers are having the choice. I have shown the maths already. If you don't agree, don't go it personal, just show your viewpoints or arguments, if any. Unless you can learn how to respect others in your reply without attacking others personally, I shall not respond to your post in this thread further.

02-23-2009, 02:35 AM	#29
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by Erik So on your 19" monitor (probably with a resolution of 1280x1024 = 1.3 megapixels) you can somehow see a "clear" difference between a full screen 6 mp image and 10 a mp one? Interesting... Please PM me if interested in selling me a bag of whatever it is you're smoking. Yes, a source that is with much higher resolution and contain more picture information will always be better even it is downsampled - universal truth here. (not only for digital pictures but for all digital media and formats!) Just believe it or not! (but I think it should not be too difficult for anyone to verify the truth..)

02-23-2009, 02:37 AM	#30
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by RiceHigh Yes, a source that is with much higher resolution and contain more picture information will always be better even it is downsampled - universal truth here (not only for digital pictures but for all digital media and formats!) 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.