Megapixel discussion - why limited to 6 ?

Maybe, but it's still true that a 6 MP chip can supply enough information to make a really good A3 print. The 8MP chips are not, at present, any significant improvement.

For most people, most of the time, our current 6MP sensors will be more than adequate esp. as the majority of users will concentrate on producing jpegs.

Sorry if the hifi analogy is becoming tiresome but it is still relevant - simply using audio instead of visual senses.
Music CDs produce 'perfect' quality sound and yet 'they' try to tell us that DVD audio is much, much better because DVDs can store so much more information that we cannot hear............well if you want to pay a premium for something that you can't actually hear, then be my guest!
If on the other hand the DVD offers significantly more usable features, then it becomes a different matter and if an 8MP+ camera gives the same low noise levels that we see in today's 6MP models but allows true predictive focussing etc. then that would certainly be worth considering.

There is a reason why pro models are faster, are more sophisticated and more expensive. They are designed and built for the rigours of pro use and most people can't afford or don't have a need for such equipment.
Many true professionals however prefer simplicity and I feel that the current Pentax range suits many pro's and amateurs, with just the right balance between price, sophistication and quality but let's not forget that digital photography is still very much an emerging technology and there are many more advances to be made.

Optical sensors have been around for thirty years or more. Admittedly the earlier ones were mono only, but the technology is far from new.

I actually don't expect many more significant improvements in digital cameras. In my cupboard I have a Leica from the 1940s with shutter speeds from B - 1,000, and an F2 lens. It can take just as good a picture as any later camera. The "improvements" between 1942 and 2005 are mainly to do with convenience. It'll be the same with digital.

So, yes, we'll get bigger buffers and higher frame rates, but not much else (IS is nothing to do with digital). And I don't anticipate much improvement in image quality.

But lower prices? Definitely.

Face it, this is already mature technology.

G

Professionals have been using Penatx MF gear for a long time, and some of us have used the 35mm equipement also.

For all practical purposes, the *st D is a pro-level camera. Minimal menu diving, sturdy construction, DOF preview, and all relevent features. Besides, it's nice not to have a dial cluttered with all those silly icons (scene modes).

It's designed to be straightforward and usable with minimum fuss. That's what a pro camera needs.

So everyone with Pentax MF lenses can now go digital for less than the cost of a small car!!

Hi,

I would like to make a few hopefully useful points...

1. For almost everyone, 6MP is more than adequate for good quality results, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the REALLY important point is how you use the equipment to take the photos in the first place! and with digital, how you process the captured images after shooting.

2. To some degree George is correct to say the lens is the limiting factor regarding potential sharpness, however the more important factor is how you use the camera. Anyone who hand holds a camera is immediately limiting the potential image sharpness to a huge degree, even If you use 'fast' shutter speeds! Zeiss conducted tests and found that hand holding a camera resulted in resolution dropping to approx 40 lines/mm when the resolution of the best film is approx 200 lines/mm. So unless you use a tripod the discusion about 'how many megapixels is best' is a bit pointless anyway.

3. There are many other very important aspects that make up a good image other than just resolution/ sharpness.....why do people keep talking about it as if nothing else matters?

4. The camera industry has now moved away from the engineering/ optical sector and unfortunately into the electronics industry, which uses the numbers game to entice unwary consumers into the 'upgrade game'. They have done this for years with hi-fi and are now applying the same untruthful advertising tactics with camera buyers.

I am always amazed how so many photographers agonise for so long over 'which camera is best' or 'which lens is best' etc, when how you use the damn stuff is FAR more important.

Cheers Steve.M. (just call me grumpy)

Well Grumpy,

For what it’s worth and in my opinion I think you have made the most valid comments so far in this thread. Well said!

Regards,
Dave.

I've not read the entire thread, but in skimming it I notice a conspicous absence of remarks about aspect ratios and resolution. I own both a canon g5 (5mp)and pro1(8mp).
how much bigger is the image in the pro 1?
at the same 300ppi, it is exactly the same hight and only slightly longer.
the frame is a little more rectangular.
Most of my studio portraits are sold as 8x10's or 16x20's.
to maintane that aspect ratio with the pro 1 requires more cropping, in other words the 3 extra mp get chopped and the end portrait is no better than the g5's, in fact it's worse, more noise and purple fringing.
On the otherhand the pro1 is a much better handling camera with a 28mm lens. Each has it's place....both behind my ist ds2.

Read the previous page, at the bottom of the post is this:

They could squeeze 8 or 10 megapixels into a full-frame sensor (preferrably not with a 2:3 aspect raio but something more like 3:4 or 4:5) but even there you run into a limit. Hence the medium format backs.

I have been carrying on for a long time about aspect ratio, but everybody seems locked into the 35mm film format, even with a smaller sensor.

Whatever the aspect ratio of any format, it will not necessarily suit the picture you wish to produce. It is rare indeed for me not to crop a picture to the shape I feel is suitable, so within reason I don't mind too much what the format is, from square up to the 35mm dimensions.

It is interesting to consider that the 35mm frame has a ratio of 1:1.5, which is quite close to the Golden Mean (1:1.618, approx). Olympus's 3:4 system is 1:1.33, and an 8x10 print is 1:1.25.

Surveys have apparently shown that a large majority of people prefer the ratio of the golden mean over any other ratio, so it is perhaps surprising that 35mm film isn't supplied in the format 24 x 39, and it is particularly surprising that photo-finishers persist in offering print sizes that don't equate to negative sizes.

G

This is something that has been argued for years - it was aired very thoroughly in PHOTO TECHNIQUE in the 1970s. Then it was thought that changing to A paper sizes would be the perfect answer.

Frankly I'm not at all sure it makes much difference.

The info regarding the golden mean is an interesting point, George.