[Miserere]

Let's assume that Pentax is introducing a FF DSLR within the next 12 months. Let's further assume that it will cost around US$2,000 and that you would consider buying it because you're happy with all its features. The final decision comes down to the sensor Pentax are using.

How many megapixels would you want this camera to have?

Right now we're not caring about a big VF, or improved AF, or better SDM handling, or how many colours it comes in. Right now we're discussing only the number of pixels in the sensor. And yes, it's a 24mmx36mm sensor (it's not square, it's not triangular, it's not 4:3...).

Feel free to explain your choice, and thanks for participating

.

---

Last edited by Miserere; 01-20-2010 at 10:12 AM.

[alehel]

I voted for 18mp because I want the best of both worlds , but to be honest, I would probably never buy one. I'm perfectly happy with the quality of my K200D.

[Pål Jensen]

All options are too low to get high resolution images. 24mp is barest minumus as it is not much better than 14mp APS (25%?).

[Miserere]

All options are too low to get high resolution images. 24mp is barest minumus as it is not much better than 14mp APS (25%?).

Heh heh, you wouldn't think so reading comments from Sony A900/850 owners

Going from 14MP to 25MP increases your linear resolution by 34%.

.

[PNTXFTW12]

18mp seems right :]
12mp is a little low, it would be foolish introducing a new flagship camera with a lower resolution sensor than the previous flagship (K7). Take the clean high-ISO performance of the K-x, improve it and put it into this camera, 18mp FF is LESS pixel density than the KX's 12mp APS sensor, so this shouldn't be a problem.
24mp is borderline unnecessary IMO, what exactly are people shooting these days that requires that many pixels? Jeeze if you're planning on printing billboards go buy a MF camera. Everyone here knows the megapixel race is over and remains just a marketing gimmick.

[pingflood]

Billboards usually don't require very high MP count because the viewing distance is so great.

Also, the poll implies that the 12mp camera would be less noisy than a downsized 24mp image -- it's not necessarily so.

[Blue]

I want a low light monster that can take pictures of moles on a moonlit night that can resolve its whiskers while its eating a cricket.

[Fl_Gulfer]

I want a low light monster that can take pictures of moles on a moonlit night that can resolve its whiskers while its eating a cricket.

I want one that will shoot bullets to kill the mole living in my beach house yard.

[Ash]

I'm not in the megapixel race. Even 15Mp would be fine for me on a FF model, but 18Mp is a decent arbitrary figure.

It does need to challenge the 5DMkII in most other aspects, though, and I would like to see both AF and P-TTL flash function improve even further... (let alone my usual plea for SDM development).

[dylansalt]

Why 24MP?

Play with some Sony images and you will get fine detail such as found in grass plains which will never obtain with aps-c even at 14mp.

Cropping in will still give you a 12mp image with no loss of detail.

[GeneV]

Someone can correct my math, but if it just kept the same density as a K-x,wouldn't it end up with at least 24mp?

[wll]

For me, somewhere between 15-18mp would be great.

I want exceptional DR and sensational ISO. I would like ISO 12,800 to look like a KX 3200.

I would want the camera to be the smallest FF in it class, and be adaptable to APS-C glass.

'nuff said !


wll

[GeneV]

For me, somewhere between 15-18mp would be great.

I want exceptional DR and sensational ISO. I would like ISO 12,800 to look like a KX 3200.

I would want the camera to be the smallest FF in it class, and be adaptable to APS-C glass.

'nuff said !


wll

Interesting point, but why wouldn't APS-C glass work if the FF is cropped?

[asdf]

Why 24MP?

Play with some Sony images and you will get fine detail such as found in grass plains which will never obtain with aps-c even at 14mp.

Cropping in will still give you a 12mp image with no loss of detail.

Definitely. BTW, if my specs and calculations are correct, starting with 24mp on a 36mm x 24mm sensor, you'd get 10mp when doing the APS-C crop (k-x's sensor is 23.6mm x 15.8mm).

Someone can correct my math, but if it just kept the same density as a K-x,wouldn't it end up with at least 24mp?

I searched for k-x's dimensions and resolution and I came up with around 28mp.

...I voted for 24mp.

[Peter Zack]

My vote is 12Mp. but it would really be 18+ for marketing reasons. We'll see what the D700s offers but I suspect they will make it around 20 to "appear better". The 7D has also changed the market as well. Although you'd think the purchaser in this category would know better.

The real plus with a FF body is high ISO's. Packing a higher density sensor in there defeats the purpose and I'd rather a clean image, natively from the sensor than electronic filters to clean it up before writing to the card.

Lets be real, how many, including me who sells a lot of prints, enlarges more than 16x20 very often. 12Mp can do that and more just fine. If the reason to get 25Mp is to crop more, then I respectfully suggest you work on your composition skills a bit or buy a longer lens.