On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Tom, >> >> Somewhat of a rhetorical question. >> >> How many photos posted to PDML in the past week can you point to that would >> be noticeably better with a 24MP sensor? >> >> How many would be cleaner with better high ISO performance? >> >> High ISO versus high megapixels in cameras is like fast laptimes versus >> number of seats in a car. Some of us want a sportscar that is fun to drive >> around a racetrack, some people want something reliable with good fuel >> economy, and others want an SUV to carry six kids around town. >> >> There is no single right answer. >> >> Larry >> > > Define better. :-) > > A good or excellent picture shot on a higher MP camera, all other > things equal, will probably be a better picture as it contains more > detail (of course you know that). > > A crumby picture shot on a higher MP camera will still be a crumby > picture. Maybe crumbier because it contains more crumby detail. > > All I'm saying is the same that Boris just elicited. Pentax hanging > onto a 16MP sensor will not look good when the rest of the world > passes them buy. Hopefully the K30 is the last 16MP camera they make. > Otherwise, Boris will be right. It doesn't matter how good the camera > is, a 16MP sensor camera will be just another boring 16MP camera, just > like the endless variety of 6MP *ist D's.
So much for the megapixel race being over. God forbid that Pentax (or anyone else) try to focus on features or usability or availability of lenses, etc. > > Do you remember back in the *ist D days, how some here said '6MP was > all they would ever need' and 'why would anyone need more'? Those same > people bought a K10D, K20D, K7, K5, and likely will buy whatever the > next flagship of Pentax will be. > I bought the K-5 because of the features besides the pixel count. The shot buffer was a huge reason; I was tired of the 3 frame limit in my K100D Super. The pentaprism was also a nice upgrade. As for the megapixels, 6MP is plenty for any kind of online viewing. Think about this, when have you ever seen a website use a picture wider than maybe 1024 pixels? Anything larger than the screen is going to get scaled down unless you are pixel peeing and you zoom in. I don't even export larger than 6MP (in Lightroom, in-camera jpegs are set to 6MP). No one I know ever needs to have 16MP jpeg files, not even clients. It clogs up email, web storage and bandwidth for no discernible benefit (I understand pro level usage requirements). > What I seem to hear you implying is that 16MP is a cut off point. I > suspect we're just throwing that number around because it happens to > represent Pentax's top of the line in APS-C at the moment. > > So here's a rhetorical question (more or less). If you could get an > equal or almost as good high ISO performance in a sensor that has a > big jump in base resolution (from which every shot could benefit > from), would you? > We don't really have much choice do we. Pentax is the one making those decisions. > The basic point is Pentax can't sit around in the 16MP realm when > other manufacturers have higher MP base models, regardless of how good > a 16MP camera it is, and expect to maintain market share. > > Tom C > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
