An interesting thought regarding the K5 Vs K3 Conundrum.

I'm with Ed!
Endure the pain!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YQdaQVfGAw

Regardless of megapixels, for me personally the K3 provides more than the K5ll. I think logic would dictate that the only way to really increase current ISO performance is to look at full frame. However, if you look at how ISO performance in APS-C has moved on over the last couple of years, next year may see another leap in performance.

I have been shooting Pentax since the K10 and progressed through the K7, K5 & K5lls. The image quality of the K5lls really impressed me, but the K3 is just perfect in every way, those additional megapixels do help when you really need them.

We all have different photographic needs in terms of spec and price and buy accordingly. I think Pentax Ricoh has a nice line up to meet these needs. Currently there is no full frame, but there is medium format if you need it.

Agree with pretty much all of that Fletcher8.
My feeling is that if your only going to own one DSLR to do pretty much everything that the K3 for me would be it, which by a happy coincidence is what I've got. You simply can't do better not even by arguably spending two-three times as much. Othere opinions may differ, let it be. I have other opinions too but "they" wouldn't like those either!

Personally I'd like to see the K5 line continue and I feel there is a place for it, some bits like say the burst rate could be improved by knocking the frame rate down to say 6Fps. It could keep it's build quality and basic features but the new meter would upgrade the flash and the new sensor shake system would negate the need for two models.
A K5 Super???

With regard to the high ISO noise comments, and not knowing a thing about sensors and how they work, would it be possible to treat two photosites as one above a certain ISO? So, above a user selectable setting, one would have a 12mp sensor but with better high ISO performance?
Brian

That's what Fuji do with their EXR sensors for that very reason. Perhaps there are patent issues that would need to be overcome.

John K

Probably got patents all over it, I'd love to see Ricoh Pentax licence the tech though...

Nokia also do it with their 41MP sensor on the 808. Hi res is 38MP mode, and then you've got what they call pixel binning in 8MP, 5MP and 3MP modes. I tend to use 8MP mode and frankly 8MP is more than enough.

There' no free lunch though. A 12MP more on the K-3 would be a great feature. it would also save disk space and allow a better FPS, how just adding 2 pixels means you're also adding the noise complainant of the signal as well as the wanted signal. 1 big pixel is better IMO.

But here's a question? I know some peeps are loving the extra picels, but where's your personal limit on this? What happens in 5 years time when the latest Pentax DSLR is 50MP ?

If 24 megapixels is too much, how about selecting a lower setting on your K-3...............


..........and then start to wonder why you bought it!

Bit like having a performance car and never exceeding 40mph.

That wouldn't actually make the raw files any smaller, just the jpegs.

36 on a full frame, maybe with that new Sony FF Exmoor sensor. Surely Pentax could put that in a K5/K3 body - perhaps they already have?!

John K

Why does there have to be a "personal limit" on MP? If you asked the question when pixel counts were 3MP then why would you ask it then, and why ask it now? Whatever MP are offered will define what's available.

There will no doubt come a point when further development in quantity wouldn't yield any image improvement that the eye could see, but no doubt then manufacturers will find something that needs the extra pixels.

How about the 24 hour holographic 360 degree camera that you wear all the time, recording your entire life as you go? Then you can shoot your stills from the record, after the event, at any focal length you like. That might need quite a few pixels.

I think you've answered your own question, just getting larger and larger files for the sake of it without any visual gain would become pointless.

Your other point is more akin to the Action Cam video shooting which normally gets away with lower pixel counts, or at least lower resolution. More pixels require more storage - the largest single external hard drive presently is only 4 terabytes.

John K

They doesn't have to be a limit and I suppose I could have worded it better by asking "what's your personal limit, if at all?"

The question is just as valid back when cams were around 3MP. Back then I would expect people to cite a number far greater than 3MP, becuase of printing large prints at a decent DPI.

I do think that these days we are getting to a stage where the MP count is becoming less of a priority to improve.






And esoteric devices that record every Higgs Boson throughout your life aside, it was rather aimed at the regular Camera.

The returns are definitley diminishing Smeggy,the 16Mp sensors had a certain something for sure but so does this new 24Mp one, allbeit with a few caveats this time. 16Mp hit the balance between DR/noise/colour but the new one kills it for detail, if you print big it's useful, (Me) If you don't, it's not. Maybe they will finally turn their heads around to DR???
Or 16 Bit, or heaven forbid 3D...

Yeah it's been out what, like 2 weeks or so? Early adopters will pave the way for updates and subsequent hardware models down the line.

That's about when I'll be able to afford one, so if you guys could just iron out all the early wrinkles for me, that would be splendid. Thanks!