[asdf]

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.

That's completely unfair and bad advice for those who shoot wildlife. I'd have to pay around (EDIT) $5000 (for Sigma 500mm f/4.5) to replace DA* 300 f/4...and I'd lose speed and portability.

---

Last edited by asdf; 01-20-2010 at 03:30 PM.

[GeneV]

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).



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

...I voted for 24mp.

That's why I said "at least." 28mp was not a poll option. For the K-7, the equivalent would be about 32.

So, that means that even at 24, we would be loosening up the density over a camera with very good ISO, and keeping it quite usable with the DA lenses, cropped.

Truly, without knowing the capabilities of the sensors, this is something of a silly question. We have a 12mp sensor today with as good or better high ISO performance than a 6MP sensor in 2006. I say I'd want something in the 20+ mp area, because I'm fairly certain that advances combined with lower density will make that sensor perform much better at high ISO than the current APS-c. On the other hand, I don't know what you can do to substitute for resolution, and the ability to use the middle 16x24mm of the sensor without a significant loss in resolution is important.

[asdf]

Truly, without knowing the capabilities of the sensors, this is something of a silly question. We have a 12mp sensor today with as good or better high ISO performance than a 6MP sensor in 2006. I say I'd want something in the 20+ mp area, because I'm fairly certain that advances combined with lower density will make that sensor perform much better at high ISO than the current APS-c. On the other hand, I don't know what you can do to substitute for resolution, and the ability to use the middle 16x24mm of the sensor without a significant loss in resolution is important.

If Pentax at some point makes a "low" mp full frame camera, I'm going to buy it and zoom closer with my legs, but keep K20D around for wildlife.

[jeffkrol]

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%.

.

Best I come up w/ is 28%...
Doubling pixel count only increases the real, linear resolution by 40%, which is pretty much invisible.
The Megapixel Myth
As to the orig. question............. MORE, MORE, MORE...... 28 is minimum more like 56MP to have real impact.
EEEK... I just quoted K. Rockwell.. my life is over...
Let's try this again:
In fact in order to double the resolution of a 4 megapixel camera one would require a 16 megapixel camera.

http://www.image-designer.com/megapixel_mp.html
THAT is how I understand it as well......... Ken's off a bit.

[asdf]

Best I come up w/ is 28%...
Doubling pixel count only increases the real, linear resolution by 40%, which is pretty much invisible.
The Megapixel Myth
As to the orig. question............. MORE, MORE, MORE...... 28 is minimum more like 56MP to have real impact.
EEEK... I just quoted K. Rockwell.. my life is over...
Let's try this again:
In fact in order to double the resolution of a 4 megapixel camera one would require a 16 megapixel camera.

DIGITAL CAMERA MEGAPIXEL RATING RESOLUTION
THAT is how I understand it as well......... Ken's off a bit.

Sadly, digital killed Ken Rockwell's tripod (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm). If he shot with more pixels he'd notice blurring due to camera shake.

[SteveM]

Why not ditch the cropped full frame (FF) and release a full full frame (FFF?)....and market it as not being phony frame?

[Peter Zack]

That's completely unfair and bad advice for those who shoot wildlife. I'd have to pay around (EDIT) $5000 (for Sigma 500mm f/4.5) to replace DA* 300 f/4...and I'd lose speed and portability.

Aren't you better off with the K-7 and a 300mm? Or whatever your current camera is? The DA300mm is a cropped sensor lens. If you want to take advantage of the FF body, you'll be replacing that lens. And a FF 300mm is probably going to run $1500.00 + then the new body will be $2000+. I've seen the Sigma 500mm sell for $4000.00 So in terms of cost, you are no further ahead and you can crop a K20D or K-7 image at least 25% if you want to (even if I don't think it helps the IQ). So getting a FF25Mp is a wash if you crop down anyway.

There is simply no, none, nada compromise for doing it right the first time. Get the glass you need to do the job and go shoot wildlife. I can say with certainty, that an uncropped 500mm shot will hold up better on the printer than the cropped 300mm shot. I know that guys like Marc Langille and a host of others will not crop to get closer. They get a blind, move in as close as they can and use the tool for the job.

So sell your DA300mm and get a 500mm and stop cropping the shots. You will spend the same amount of money. The shots will look better.

[asdf]

Aren't you better off with the K-7 and a 300mm? Or whatever your current camera is? The DA300mm is a cropped sensor lens. If you want to take advantage of the FF body, you'll be replacing that lens. And a FF 300mm is probably going to run $1500.00 + then the new body will be $2000+. I've seen the Sigma 500mm sell for $4000.00 So in terms of cost, you are no further ahead and you can crop a K20D or K-7 image at least 25% if you want to (even if I don't think it helps the IQ). So getting a FF25Mp is a wash if you crop down anyway.

There is simply no, none, nada compromise for doing it right the first time. Get the glass you need to do the job and go shoot wildlife. I can say with certainty, that an uncropped 500mm shot will hold up better on the printer than the cropped 300mm shot. I know that guys like Marc Langille and a host of others will not crop to get closer. They get a blind, move in as close as they can and use the tool for the job.

So sell your DA300mm and get a 500mm and stop cropping the shots. You will spend the same amount of money. The shots will look better.

I'm not cropping the shots. The digital camera is. DA* 300 f/4 does fine on film. Also, I already posted above that if Pentax made a "low" mp camera, I'd keep K20D.

[Peter Zack]

Well we have different points of view and that's fine.

The point of the thread is the sensor. I hope they build a low light monster. If it's 25Mp and not much better at high ISO's then I think they will not get the sales. More people (IMHO) would be happy with a 12-18Mp camera that can take a native, clean 6400 shot than a croppable sensor that is still best at ISO 800-1600.

If it's 25Mp, I'll wait to see the results and tests. But I suspect it's not the camera I want.

[asdf]

Well we have different points of view and that's fine.

The point of the thread is the sensor. I hope they build a low light monster. If it's 25Mp and not much better at high ISO's then I think they will not get the sales. More people (IMHO) would be happy with a 12-18Mp camera that can take a native, clean 6400 shot than a croppable sensor that is still best at ISO 800-1600.

If it's 25Mp, I'll wait to see the results and tests. But I suspect it's not the camera I want.

I'm happy with the K20D and I hope Pentax does whatever makes business sense. There are those who want more pixels for large/giant prints and those who want better low light performance (and maybe more fps)--my point is that it's more than just marketing (your original contention?). There is a D3s and a D3x for a reason. Unfortunately, Pentax can't afford to go both ways.

[Pål Jensen]

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..

No. You don't find that fine details like grass with the Sony. I've seen the samples. In fact I have seen no digital camera that can provide that fine texture but I have hopes for the Pentax 645D.....

[wll]

A replaceable sensor, one at maybe 15mp and one at ~24mp.

That way for landscape, architecture, studio, you could use one sensor and for concert, low light stuff you could use the other ..... do you guys think that type of technology is possible ?


wll

[asdf]

A replaceable sensor, one at maybe 15mp and one at ~24mp.

That way for landscape, architecture, studio, you could use one sensor and for concert, low light stuff you could use the other ..... do you guys think that type of technology is possible ?


wll

Medium format cameras have replaceable backs. I don't know if it's economical to do it with a more compact camera.

[Graystar]

35 MP so I can print 16x20 at 300 PPI!

[ma318]

I think I only need 12MP. But I want 37.5MP because that's what the Leica S2 got.