> From: Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> > > Oh, absolutely. I couldn't possibly have dreamed that I would be driving > a 125 BHP car every day like 10 years ago... > > And indeed, I have K-5 and every now and then its high ISO capabilities > come in handy. No argument here. > > My point is different. It is that to say that Nikon D7100 is worse than > Pentax K-5 because one does ISO 6400 or ISO 25600 and another does ISO > 51200 is splitting hairs IMHO. It is because unless you have very > specific special type of shooting that requires such a capability, this > difference is rather theoretical. The difference in dynamic range and > color fidelity between K-7 and K-5 is real, even under relatively bright > light. And such a difference can have visible impact on the pictures. > Shooting very close to highest ISO (and having just 1 EV of difference > between cameras) is, well, how to put it (as I most certainly don't mean > to offend Darren or anybody else for that matter) - mostly marketing hype. > > I expect a lot of argument going to happen (unlikely here, but very > likely on other forums that I happen to visit or participate in) as to > whether Pentax really needs this 24 MP sensor and whether the increase > of pixel count is necessary. Further, some would advocate as if their > life would depend on that, that then extra 8 MP is a life saving > circumstance... IMHO - this sensor has 12 MP too many. > > In fact, I much rather Pentax improved their imaging engine (e.g. the > processing and rendering of rightmost part of the histogram or color > fidelity) rather than invest in MP race... > > So, indeed, one would have uses for things such as extra high ISOs or > extra high pixel count. But would these extra high parameters be a deal > breaker? Possibly but very improbably... >
You know how it is here for the most part. If Pentax has it, and another manufacturer does not, then Pentax is the best in the world. If another manufacturer has it, and Pentax does not, then why does one need it? As you say Boris, it's all about the end use. One doesn't need the higher ISO capability until one is in a position where their images lack because of not having it. One doesn't need the higher resolution sensor until one wishes to present their images at a larger size, and then finds out it would have been nice to have. Or they could have used the extra resolution when cropping. For the most part, the user of any given system, doesn't truly realize the potential of a new system (be it same brand or otherwise) until they actually use it. When we had 6MP we shot with those, then it was 10, 14, 16... given the ability to obtain one, who would deliberately choose a 6 over 16. I agree, that claiming a camera is better or worse than another based on the highest ISO spec (or merely MP) is pushing it a bit. Those numbers are the extreme limit, and shooting at those ISO's while possibly yielding a 'usable' image, may not yield a 'great' image noise-wise. As regards the 'MP race', Pentax must at least give the appearance of keeping up or become irrelevant. Customer: What about this camera? Camera salesman: That one only has 16MP. That's 8 MP less than a 24MP camera. The more MP the more detail you can capture. Several years ago the top of the line digital cameras a normal person could afford only had 8MP, 16MP is twice that. 24MP is 3 times that. All the other manufacturers are producing cameras with more than 16MP. What will the customer do? 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.
