Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2010, 02:15 PM   #46
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,667
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
The megapixel war has never been something that Pentax has taken part in, I thought that you were referring to Canon and Nikon.
I suppose that's why they were the first to break 14, when everyone else was excited about 12? They made a point of noting it, too.

QuoteQuote:
I agree that Pentax really has no interest in it, look how long they kept the six megapixel sensor for.
Nothing to do with cheap and plentiful supply, I suppose. That 6mp sony sensor is probably the longest-produced DSLR sensor on the market. Cheap, basic, reliable, and adequate.

@knox: yes, the theoretical increase in linear resolution is relatively small, but that doesn't change the fact that the newest sensors deliver higher resolution, wider dynamic range, and lower noise than their predecessors on the whole. Over the long course of paying way too much attention to these debates I have seen absolutely nothing to solidly demonstrate that these increases in pixel density diminish image quality, potential or otherwise. Nor have I read anything reputable that suggests that such a drop in quality should occur on APS-C sensors at pixel densities anywhere close to what we're seeing today. Pixel densities on compact camera sensors? Yes. DSLR sensors? There's a lot of room yet.

While I haven't seen anything to suggest that image quality should be decreasing, I have seen that, even as the pixels rise, image quality is increasing. Ignoring the sensor in the K-x/D90/D5000, the newest 18mp Canon sensor produces absolutely the best RAW image quality I've seen from the samples of any other crop-sensor camera at any pixel density I've seen in the past. That's the reality that stands in the way of any claims I read. The K-x sensor is a particular standout from the crowd in terms of DR and high ISO performance, but that's because Sony designed a damn good sensor, not because it's "only" 12mp.

04-18-2010, 02:22 PM   #47
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
I suppose that's why they were the first to break 14, when everyone else was excited about 12? They made a point of noting it, too.



Nothing to do with cheap and plentiful supply, I suppose. That 6mp sony sensor is probably the longest-produced DSLR sensor on the market. Cheap, basic, reliable, and adequate.

@knox: yes, the theoretical increase in linear resolution is relatively small, but that doesn't change the fact that the newest sensors deliver higher resolution, wider dynamic range, and lower noise than their predecessors on the whole. Over the long course of paying way too much attention to these debates I have seen absolutely nothing to solidly demonstrate that these increases in pixel density diminish image quality, potential or otherwise. Nor have I read anything reputable that suggests that such a drop in quality should occur on APS-C sensors at pixel densities anywhere close to what we're seeing today. Pixel densities on compact camera sensors? Yes. DSLR sensors? There's a lot of room yet.

While I haven't seen anything to suggest that image quality should be decreasing, I have seen that, even as the pixels rise, image quality is increasing. Ignoring the sensor in the K-x/D90/D5000, the newest 18mp Canon sensor produces absolutely the best RAW image quality I've seen from the samples of any other crop-sensor camera at any pixel density I've seen in the past. That's the reality that stands in the way of any claims I read. The K-x sensor is a particular standout from the crowd in terms of DR and high ISO performance, but that's because Sony designed a damn good sensor, not because it's "only" 12mp.
They weren't really the first one to have that 14 megapixel sensor, the Canon 50D was released with 15.1 less than a year after the K20D was, but I did forget about that. However it does seem like it's not the most important thing to Pentax as it is to Canon and Nikon, it seems more like Pentax is more interested in making quality cameras than worrying about how to stuff more megapixels into them.
04-18-2010, 03:10 PM   #48
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,667
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
They weren't really the first one to have that 14 megapixel sensor, the Canon 50D was released with 15.1 less than a year after the K20D was, but I did forget about that.
...then who was the first with that 14mp sensor? GX-20 doesn't count, they leaked first but announced second.

QuoteQuote:
However it does seem like it's not the most important thing to Pentax as it is to Canon and Nikon, it seems more like Pentax is more interested in making quality cameras than worrying about how to stuff more megapixels into them.
Maybe they're also aware that by using sensors with higher pixel densities they also increase the quality of their cameras (on the imaging front). I find it interesting that you mention Nikon when they've still only got one camera with more than 12mp. T'would seem to me they fit the "not worrying about megapixels" idea better than Pentax, actually, at this point.
04-18-2010, 03:13 PM   #49
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
...then who was the first with that 14mp sensor? GX-20 doesn't count, they leaked first but announced second.



Maybe they're also aware that by using sensors with higher pixel densities they also increase the quality of their cameras (on the imaging front). I find it interesting that you mention Nikon when they've still only got one camera with more than 12mp. T'would seem to me they fit the "not worrying about megapixels" idea better than Pentax, actually, at this point.
Well, it would seem that you've got me on all fronts, except for one. Adding more megapixels does not increase the quality of the photos that come from the Canon cameras. If Canon had released a new camera with only ten megapixels (which is really all you need) then the low light noise levels on it would be astronomically great, with ISO 12800 probably being totally usable, but they still don't seem to get that.

04-19-2010, 07:38 AM   #50
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,667
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
Well, it would seem that you've got me on all fronts, except for one. Adding more megapixels does not increase the quality of the photos that come from the Canon cameras. If Canon had released a new camera with only ten megapixels (which is really all you need) then the low light noise levels on it would be astronomically great, with ISO 12800 probably being totally usable, but they still don't seem to get that.
They "don't seem to get that" because it's simply not true. Image noise for a certain exposure is dependent on sensor size and sensor efficiency.

There are two important things to note here:

First, for a sensor design of a certain efficiency, noise per sensor area is the same no matter what. However, the output of a larger sensor (including the noise present) is enlarged less for the same image viewing size than the output of a smaller sensor, which means that the smaller sensor will show more image noise. This is why FF sensors look so much better at high ISO than smaller sensors, even when compared to more efficient small sensors; for example, the Panasonic GH1's premium 4/3-size sensor is more efficient per a given physical sensor area than the sensor in the D3. However, since the smaller area of that efficient sensor's output has to be enlarged so much more than the D3's sensor's output, the GH1 still shows considerably more actual image noise.

Second, you can have two sensors of equal efficiency at the same size whose final output shows exactly the same amount of actual image noise, but if one has a total pixel count of 6mp and one has a total pixel count of 18mp, the typical pixel-level crop evaluations will show the 6mp sensor as producing much less noise. This would be an erroneous conclusion, obviously, since actual image noise would be the same and the smaller pixels of the 18mp would cause the output to be enlarged much more for evaluation at pixel level than the 6mp image. The pixel-level output of the lower-res sensor would show less noise because each unit of area is sampled fewer times, averaging and visually "smoothing out" a lot of the noise. This is not an advantage, since the higher-res sensor's output will natively contain higher levels of detail along with more visible noise and can be downsampled to achieve the same effect if one wishes, or simply printed so our eyes can do the averaging themselves.

The obvious results of these two factors? Bigger sensors (which tend to have bigger photosites) produce lower image noise. Equal-sized sensors with bigger photosites produce less pixel-level noise. It's easy to make the assumption (as many have) from these observations that bigger photosites=less noise, but the more you investigate it the more it becomes clear that that's simply not the case. Sensor size and sensor efficiency are the determining factors. The difference in potential sensitivity between photosites on a 6mp APS-C sensor and a 24mp APS-C sensor are meaninglessly tiny (at the pixel densities we see on compact cameras the differences are a lot bigger and actually mean something to image quality) and have far less importance in the equation than sensor efficiency, which is what determines the actual level of noise per area of the sensor. Higher or lower pixel density simply determines how much of that noise we can distinguish.

Lowering pixel density to 10mp with their current sensor technology would not enable Canon to make a significantly better-in-low-light sensor. It would just enable them to make a camera with approximately the same level of overall image noise, slightly less image noise at pixel level due to lower sampling rate, and slightly less image detail. More efficient sensor technology would enable them to make a better-in-low-light 10mp sensor, or 18mp sensor, or 24mp sensor. Pixel densities were kept lower in the past because less-dense sensors are cheaper to manufacture (the densities rise as the costs fall), not because they're better.

Canon, Pentax, Nikon, etc. know what they're doing with the continuing rise of pixel densities. It's not just a marketing gimmick, and it has clear benefits that they can see. It's unfortunate that a few guys with little to no technical training who run some review sites can draw these erroneous conclusions and then be granted more trust by the consumers than the companies who are paying highly knowledgable, competent people to help them build the best cameras they can. And you know the public, give them a juicy idea like "the camera companies are actually putting worse sensors in our cameras now as a ploy to sell more cameras" and they just won't let it go. Everyone loves a conspiracy theory.

I swear this exact topic has been hashed and rehashed on these boards at least a dozen times and it amazes me that the same ideas continue to pop up.
04-19-2010, 12:26 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
@knox: yes, the theoretical increase in linear resolution is relatively small, but that doesn't change the fact that the newest sensors deliver higher resolution, wider dynamic range, and lower noise than their predecessors on the whole. Over the long course of paying way too much attention to these debates I have seen absolutely nothing to solidly demonstrate that these increases in pixel density diminish image quality, potential or otherwise. Nor have I read anything reputable that suggests that such a drop in quality should occur on APS-C sensors at pixel densities anywhere close to what we're seeing today. Pixel densities on compact camera sensors? Yes. DSLR sensors? There's a lot of room yet.
Image quality at lower pixel densities could (and would) be even better. Much -- if not most -- of what's been done to improve image quality in high-density sensors is equally applicable to lower-density sensors.

It's a simple fact that a larger photodetector has a larger surface area with which to gather photons, and (given the same technologies in other areas), a larger well depth (total number of photons that can be collected). It also has a lesser area of the sensor devoted to circuitry, which doesn't change in size relative to pixel size (ie. even if you make your pixels smaller, the circuitry per pixel remains the same, and the area of the sensor available for light gathering falls as a proportion of the total area).

These things combined mean that all other things (sensor size, process and technologies used, etc.) being equal, a lower-density sensor yields improved signal to noise ratio, and improved dynamic range versus the higher-density sensor.
04-27-2010, 05:24 PM   #52
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 787
Original Poster
today, the K7 is at $868. it'll probably crack the <$800 barrier by june
04-27-2010, 05:25 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 479
QuoteOriginally posted by opiedog Quote
today, the K7 is at $868. it'll probably crack the <$800 barrier by june
... and then I pounce.

04-28-2010, 01:46 AM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
I wish it was that cheap here... cheapest price is $1260
04-28-2010, 10:51 AM   #55
krs
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 394
QuoteOriginally posted by opiedog Quote
today, the K7 is at $868. it'll probably crack the <$800 barrier by june

Someone else predicted that it would break the $800 barrier by April 15th, and that date has come and gone.

I am waiting for this barrier to be cracked as well, then I will buy as well!

Camera King has it for $829 / $844 with a kit lens, but I am not sure if they are a dealer to buy from or not...
04-28-2010, 11:33 AM   #56
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Madrid
Posts: 10
Alguién me puede decir el nombre de alguna tienda en New York, en dónde pueda conseguir la pentax K7 a los precios que estais mencionando. O una Página web en donde se vendan a estos precios... Tengo una conocida que es azafata que me la podría traer a españa, pere me pide referencias de lugares....

Muchas gracias
04-28-2010, 11:34 AM   #57
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,179
QuoteOriginally posted by Kurgan Quote
Alguién me puede decir el nombre de alguna tienda en New York, en dónde pueda conseguir la pentax K7 a los precios que estais mencionando. O una Página web en donde se vendan a estos precios... Tengo una conocida que es azafata que me la podría traer a españa, pere me pide referencias de lugares....

Muchas gracias
BH and Adorama

Edit: Both of this companies have brick and mortar stores in New York, City so your friend would be able to go and pick it up in person.

Last edited by Blue; 04-28-2010 at 12:55 PM.
04-28-2010, 12:09 PM   #58
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 44
QuoteOriginally posted by krs Quote

Camera King has it for $829 / $844 with a kit lens, but I am not sure if they are a dealer to buy from or not...
They have the tendency to call customers to add stuff which is usually included in the box for more money.
more can be read here:
Camera Kings (bwayphoto.com, preferredphoto.com, digitalliquidators.com, regalcamera.com, more..) - camerakings.com - Reviews, Ratings and Prices at ResellerRatings
04-28-2010, 01:31 PM   #59
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Madrid
Posts: 10
Gracias por la información.
04-28-2010, 02:24 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,054
The lowest price I see from an authorized pentax retailer is $979 @ buydig. I have done business with them before and was satisfied with the transaction.
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, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k-7 finally, a price drop opiedog Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 09-10-2009 05:35 PM
Expect K7 Price Drop superfuzzy Pentax News and Rumors 54 09-10-2009 03:12 PM
Price Drop? PaddlesUp Pentax News and Rumors 19 07-05-2009 06:32 AM
K20 price drop FHPhotographer Pentax News and Rumors 24 02-17-2009 07:20 PM
K100 Price drop Christian Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 05-24-2007 09:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 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