One very good reason to go with the 42MP sensor: In crop mode with DA lenses, it will perform as well as the K-3 sensor. Hard drives are cheap, and modern processors can easily handle large files. Some of my scans of medium format negs are more than 1 gig, and my 2011 iMac 27 has no problem with them.
Paul > On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:57 PM, John <[email protected]> wrote: > > Another thing to consider regarding the pixel-count race is that Pentax > doesn't manufacture their own sensors. > > Does Sony offer other manufacturers a full-frame sensor with a lesser > pixel-count than the sensor slated to be used by Pentax? > > On 6/30/2015 1:57 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: >> Gordon Moore didn't actually give us anything, he stated a "law" that he >> more or less pulled out of his a$$. That he was at the time right is a >> tribute to engineers having a good feel for their area of expertise. >> Rules of thumb like that are only valid until they're not. some rules of >> thumb are pretty constant I don't think this one is, eventually physics >> will dictate an end, and, that relationship will fail to hold. But, >> people will continue quoting it as if it were still true. Sadly, physics >> is a strict mistress, but eventually she must be paid her due. >> >> On 6/30/2015 12:58 PM, 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. :-) >>> >>> 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! >>> >>> Also, a sensor with fewer pixels would be more prone to aliasing. That >>> might mean a return of the AA filter. >>> >>> 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! >>> >> >> > > -- > Science - Questions we may never find answers for. > Religion - Answers we must never question. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
