[dadipentak]

6 megapixels is plenty.

Agree. Sure, I like the 14.5MP of the K20D because it lets me crop like a butcher but a good 4.5MP TIFF can make a fine 8x10.

[VaughnA]

I'm really regretting buying my *ist DL for 260 bucks last week. I'm surprised I can make out faces in the photos with only 6mp.

Like all things everyone has an opinion. Each with a bit of truth. Everyone has to decide what matters to them I read through many arguments like the one and made my decision and I'm very happy with it. Considering I rarely print my photos larger than 5X7 I think I'll be happy with 6.1 MP. I think that is true of most amateur shutterbugs like myself.

Man, this is worse than listening to the Campy / Shimano fights in the cycling forums.;-)

[ll_coffee_lP]

I'm really regretting buying my *ist DL for 260 bucks last week. I'm surprised I can make out faces in the photos with only 6mp.

Like all things everyone has an opinion. Each with a bit of truth. Everyone has to decide what matters to them I read through many arguments like the one and made my decision and I'm very happy with it. Considering I rarely print my photos larger than 5X7 I think I'll be happy with 6.1 MP. I think that is true of most amateur shutterbugs like myself.

Man, this is worse than listening to the Campy / Shimano fights in the cycling forums.;-)

I agree. Dogging on "Rice High's" comments for the sake of dogging on them is ridiculous. Some may not agree with his opinions, but they are HIS opinions, and I find that he puts up with quite a bit of verbal (type written) abuse and continues to be polite.

Be respectful everyone.

c[_]

I owned a K100D for 13 months and I had the chance to work a bit with K-m too. If I were in your shoes I'd get the K-m because all in all it has several features K100D miss (or has them on a lower level) such as:

- it is WAY faster in all aspect of operation (clearing the buffer, transfer the data to PC, in viewing pictures and so on);
- faster AF in all circumstances ranging from "a little faster" in broad light to "big difference faster" when lights go dim;
- the ability to work with SDM lenses (not an issue if you get the "K100D Super" variant;
- dust cleaning system (again see above, K100D Super has it too);
- a better LCD (I compared next to each other and the K-m's is visible better);
- I'd say a better ISO1600 IMO based on the finer aspect of the grain, easier to remove by the software such as Noise Ninja;
- obviously and highly debated upwards in this thread more cropping ability which is always a good thing to have;
- I'd say twice the autonomy with hi mAph accus;
- a second generation SR mechanism (identical to K200D and K20D);
- whilst smaller it was comfortable for me to hold (a tall guy with much larger than average hands). Also it's pretty easy to operate with one hand;
- a plethora of new features in menus which can be from totally useless to you to highly remarkable depending on your personal preferences;
- a new camera carries warranty which is always a good thing;

The K100D has some advantages which again depend much upon your shooting style (top LCD - I love it, I'd say better/cleaner ISO 800, the selectable AF points). Whist I know it won't happen I guess for Pentax a K100D "Special Edition" in a K-m body with a Prime processor and a totally new electronics inside would make a very nice specialized camera for many of us.

Regards,
Radu

Attached Images

 

[Javaslinger]

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.

You are very touchy.... relax....

[krypticide]

Back to the OP, please compare the K100D and the K-m (and everything else for that matter) and decide what works best for you. Only you can find the optimal balance between features and price.

[Marc Sabatella]

Even assuming it has the "perfect" resolution in 3000 x 2000, you can get only 10" x 6.7" print at most.

Nonsense. That's the biggest size at which you get 300dpi, but not everything has to be 300dpi to be useful. The larger the print, the less resolution you need, because it won't typically be viewed from as close. And of course, not everyone cares about printing larger than that, anyhow.

Anyhow, no doubt, more resolution is good when printing large. 6MP iosn't as good as 10. 10 isn't as good as 14. 14 isn't as good as 21. And so on. Who's to say where the magic "good enough" line should be drawn?

[Marc Sabatella]

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

This would be true in an ideal world, and indeed, it's something I point out when observing than the noise on my K200D looks about as good as the K100D when viewed at the same size. But this constant-noise theory does not always hold up in practice. I think part of the reason is that the spaces *between* the pixel sites becomes more and significant as you increase the number of pixels. Unless you find a way to shrink those gaps, you're not going to do yourself any favors by shrinking the pixel sites to fit more on. I suspect also that the extent to which noise increase with smaller pixel sites is not completely linear (or should that be quadratic?)

Anyhow, I actually have no particular opinion on the K-m versus K100D question. I just want to make sure people are not making decision based on claims like "6MP isn't enough" or that "more pixels is always better and that trumps any other concern [ like the top LCD, DOF preview, more AF points, selectable AF points, etc ]".

[jct us101]

Don't even start. RiceHigh has constantly brought it upon himself to hate Pentax and it's users ever since he was banned from Dpreview. He has a personal grudge against the brand and I'm suprised he hasn't started saying "just get a Canon". His own arguments are ALL flawed, and he is incredibly rude. So don't tell me to lay off.

[Mallee Boy]

Nonsense. That's the biggest size at which you get 300dpi, but not everything has to be 300dpi to be useful. The larger the print, the less resolution you need, because it won't typically be viewed from as close. And of course, not everyone cares about printing larger than that, anyhow.

Anyhow, no doubt, more resolution is good when printing large. 6MP iosn't as good as 10. 10 isn't as good as 14. 14 isn't as good as 21. And so on. Who's to say where the magic "good enough" line should be drawn?

Hi Marc,
I was admiring a head portrait (poster size) hanging on a wall of a professional photographers reception area in Adelaide, South Australia and commented to the photographer on the quality of the shot.

He replied (with a wry smile) that it was shot with a Nikon D40, which I believe uses the same sensor as Pentax 6mpx dslr's (please correct me if I am wrong).

The photographer is my brother in law, so I can vouch for the info being correct.

Cheers
Grant

[crispy0009]

My 1st DSLR was the *ist DL, I loved it. Then I upgraded to the K10D b/c I wanted more advanced features. The K10D is awesome.

[RiceHigh]

Nonsense. That's the biggest size at which you get 300dpi, but not everything has to be 300dpi to be useful. The larger the print, the less resolution you need, because it won't typically be viewed from as close. And of course, not everyone cares about printing larger than that, anyhow.

Yes, of course. But just don't think 300 dpi is something that is of very high density so that our eyes cannot distinguish.

A 20" 4:3 LCD monitor in the resolution of 1600 x 1200 exactly has 100 pixels per inch but then one pixel consists of 3 dots, each of the R, G and B. So, physically it is already there 300 physical dots per inch for such a monitor (same counting method for camera manufacturers to tell us about the resolution of sensors as well as back panel LCD used in their DSLRs).

But the question is that can you be able to see the dots on that 20" monitor? Probably yes (if you view just a bit closer) and no (if the viewing distance is far enough, e.g., 2 feet and beyond). But as for a typical 8 x 12" A4 print, it is just not something that is as large as a 20" monitor and one can always view closer and of course as such a higher dpi is undoubtedly required.

Anyhow, no doubt, more resolution is good when printing large. 6MP iosn't as good as 10. 10 isn't as good as 14. 14 isn't as good as 21. And so on. Who's to say where the magic "good enough" line should be drawn?

The "line" can be drawn easily if we take the films we used as reference.

Typical modern consumer ISO 100 film has a specified resolution of 70-80 line pairs / mm with reasonably high enough MTF at around 50%. With professional slide at lower ISO speeds, it can even reach the 100 lp/mm value. So, with a 135 film of resolution 75 lp/mm, the lw/ph (line widths (dots) per picture height) is just 75 x 2 x 24mm, which is equal to 3600 lw/ph which is 1.5X more actual resolution than the 14.6MP K20D, which is only measured to be at 2400 lw/ph *at best*. (Do note each "dot" of color film contains already all the R, G and B colour information already)

So, we have to get at least 2.25 (square of 1.5) more pixels than the K20D before a DSLR can rival the resolution of just a roll of 135 ISO 100 (slide) film, which is 2.25 x 14.6 = 32.85 Megapixels!

With professional slides at lower ISOs, the lw/ph is 4800 and thus we need 4X more pixels to do the equivalence, i.e., 58.4 MPs!

Again, 6M? (I am not talking about whether it suits the needs of particular users or not, but it is not "plenty", even if it is compared against typical films)

Yes, of course. But just don't think 300 dpi is something that is of very high density so that our eyes cannot distinguish.

A 20" 4:3 LCD monitor in the resolution of 1600 x 1200 exactly has 100 pixels per inch but then one pixel consists of 3 dots, each of the R, G and B. So, physically it is already there 300 physical dots per inch for such a monitor (same counting method for camera manufacturers to tell us about the resolution of sensors as well as back panel LCD used in their DSLRs).

But the question is that can you be able to see the dots on that 20" monitor? Probably yes (if you view just a bit closer) and no (if the viewing distance is far enough, e.g., 2 feet and beyond). But as for a typical 8 x 12" A4 print, it is just not something that is as large as a 20" monitor and one can always view closer and of course as such a higher dpi is undoubtedly required.



The "line" can be drawn easily if we take the films we used as reference.

Typical modern consumer ISO 100 film has a specified resolution of 70-80 line pairs / mm with reasonably high enough MTF at around 50%. With professional slide at lower ISO speeds, it can even reach the 100 lp/mm value. So, with a 135 film of resolution 75 lp/mm, the lw/ph (line widths (dots) per picture height) is just 75 x 2 x 24mm, which is equal to 3600 lw/ph which is 1.5X more actual resolution than the 14.6MP K20D, which is only measured to be at 2400 lw/ph *at best*. (Do note each "dot" of color film contains already all the R, G and B colour information already)

So, we have to get at least 2.25 (square of 1.5) more pixels than the K20D before a DSLR can rival the resolution of just a roll of 135 ISO 100 (slide) film, which is 2.25 x 14.6 = 32.85 Megapixels!

With professional slides at lower ISOs, the lw/ph is 4800 and thus we need 4X more pixels to do the equivalence, i.e., 58.4 MPs!

Again, 6M? (I am not talking about whether it suits the needs of particular users or not, but it is not "plenty", even if it is compared against typical films)

Why don't you pull your head out of your butt and start taking some pictures? yesterday a friend of mine with a Canon, saw I had a new camera. He was telling me all the mumbo jumbo about it, but at the end of the day I had better pictures.
You can talk all the tech you want but at the end of the day your blog spot and crap you spout is just boring, uninteresting and has nothing to do with taking a good photo.
DPI, Megapixel, focus points yada yada yada.
You Canon fanboys must be paid by Canon to diss other brands. Why don't you go back to a Canon forum and tell them how great you are?
I don't know what ax you got to grind but you are about down to the handle.

[ll_coffee_lP]

Why don't you pull your head out of your butt and start taking some pictures? yesterday a friend of mine with a Canon, saw I had a new camera. He was telling me all the mumbo jumbo about it, but at the end of the day I had better pictures.
You can talk all the tech you want but at the end of the day your blog spot and crap you spout is just boring, uninteresting and has nothing to do with taking a good photo.
DPI, Megapixel, focus points yada yada yada.
You Canon fanboys must be paid by Canon to diss other brands. Why don't you go back to a Canon forum and tell them how great you are?
I don't know what ax you got to grind but you are about down to the handle.

I don't know about other's here, but I find what Rice High writes about interesting and informative.

Perhaps I'm in the minority in my thoughts about Rice High's comments, however I do know I'm not in the minority in noting that this is a friendly place to talk about Pentax and photography in general - whether that be taking quick snaps of friends, professional studio work, or pixel peepers. Name calling and mudslinging are not needed and not welcome.

I suggest that you put a check on your angst and perhaps view some of the other wonderful sections of the forum here. I'd like to suggest the Post Your Photo section to see some actual work by our Pentax brothers and sisters.

c[_]

I don't know about other's here, but I find what Rice High writes about interesting and informative.

Perhaps I'm in the minority in my thoughts about Rice High's comments, however I do know I'm not in the minority in noting that this is a friendly place to talk about Pentax and photography in general - whether that be taking quick snaps of friends, professional studio work, or pixel peepers. Name calling and mudslinging are not needed and not welcome.

I suggest that you put a check on your angst and perhaps view some of the other wonderful sections of the forum here. I'd like to suggest the Post Your Photo section to see some actual work by our Pentax brothers and sisters.

c[_]

Come on. What I posted was an observation of his blog. He has major problems with both Pentax and a Camera Web site. Why would anyone go through so much effort to trash others yet you rush to his defense?
His mind numbing blogs and posts have little to do with photography. Where are all his gallery posts? He is just a mud slinger and he tries to come off as this almighty diety on cameras.
Hang around for a while and see if he doesn't get on your nerves!
Certainly most of the people here are helpful and friendly but it seems like every forum has their haters on them that spend all their time pushing their agenda and Ricecakes is one of them.
Another Canon fanboy just got banned from this forum. Nothing constructive to say.
Sure there are going to be problems with cameras. That is why you buy them from a reputable place so you can send it back if it doesn't work or fit your need. I have no problems with people liking their other brands of cameras but to constantly come in here and trash Pentax is ridiculous.
Now if people want to talk about taking pictures and ISO and camera settings I am all ears.
I just don't dig MR. Rice cakes.
Now that will be that last word I have on him or about him.