I pretty much agree with Matthew's analysis.
Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Mark Roberts
<[email protected]> wrote:
Storage space, processing power. Also you can always get better noise
performance from larger sensor sites, given equivalent technology.
Some people prefer that over greater resolution.
Gordon Moore, in his infinite kindness, provides us with both more
pixels, and the tools to deal with them. :-)
That's a Mark.
The "better noise perfomance" argument is less true with the Sony
Exmor sensors than it used to be. Read noise--which is what you incur
on a per-pixel basis--is very well controlled in these sensors. You
could downsample in post, and get performance very close to a sensor
designed at the downsampled size. It's hard to go the other way! And
the 42MP sensor is back-side illuminated, so you'll be getting a big
S/N gain there compared to previous sensors. The net result will
probably be both higher pixel density and better noise characteristics
than the K-5. And a bigger sensor, of course. Win-win-win!
As I understand it, Pentax sensors (Sony) from the K-x on are back side
illuminated. I haven't worked out the physics, but I suspect that over
all image noise at a given final resolution is more a product of sensor
size than pixel size, assuming proper image processing. This is probably
why despite the K-3 not testing out as well as the K-5 in certain
regards, the effective image quality seems to be on par at equivalent
resolution. I suspect the same goes for dynamic range as well.
Also, a sensor with fewer pixels would be more prone to aliasing. That
might mean a return of the AA filter.
Once sensors start outresolving the lenses, then all sorts of
interesting things can happen mathematically.
Or, I suppose you could consider it a 10MP Foveon sensor, because at
10MP every site has the full bayer array.
I guess my point is that everyone seems to love the K-5 and K-3
sensors. This is a bigger version of those, with the bonus of backside
illumination. Be happy!
Ever since I got my K100 about 8 years ago people have been complaining
about the lack of a Pentax full frame sensor, now watch people complain
about that as well.
From the point of simply selling cameras, they would lose more sales to
lower resolution than they would to higher resolution. It is to my
benefit for Ricoh to be successful with the Pentax brand, so I want them
to sell more cameras.
There are other features that I care more about than resolution:
A histogram of raw data
Being able to bracket on sensitivity as well as shutter speed.
More focus points that each cover a smaller area so my camera will focus
on musicians rather than the microphone.
tethering
lens availability: faster weather sealed lenses in particular.
product availability: I want to see the cameras in the stores so more
people buy them so that it's easier to get third party gear made for pentax.
--
Larry Colen [email protected] (postbox on min4est)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
