The difference between the K-3 and K-5 IIs is there and easy to see. The difference between the K-5 IIs and the old K-5 was pretty easy for me to see as well. A 2x3 meter print would be a rather large enlargement for anything, film or digital, and I can tell you that I know I would be able to see a difference if the lens used was out-resolving the sensor in both cases. Even if it really wasn't, the center should at least be sharper in the higher pixel density image.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: > > > Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote: >> >> i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter >> print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at >> close range. >> i would actually bet. > > > I suspect that it would be possible to come up with use cases where you > could tell the difference. They would be pathological corner cases, such as > where an image is just over the edge of moire at 36mp and just under the > edge of moire at 48mp. > > Fifty percent more pixels mean 12.2% better linear resolution. I think that > is a discernible difference. That is also about the same difference as there > is between the K-5 and the K-3, and people do seem to be able to tell those > apart. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) > > -- > 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. -- 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.