Can you direct me to the test/review that proves that is the case please? I'd love to be convinced. Whenever I zoom in on images shot only on 6 MP cameras I notice softness, aberrations, etc before I see pixels, and that's with OEM lenses too.[/b]

Thanks for that John.

So why are so many people being drawn in to the 'must have more pixels' trap I wonder?

Reasonable response - but then you get into how good your optics are. Most optics are outperformed by the CCD.

I've been pondering the enigma of the question "how many pixels does my camera need".

Most writers on the subject base their answer on the size of the print one wants.

But consider this:

When one views a picture one usually stands at what might be described as 'a comfortable distance' from it, and I would suggest that that distance increases with the size of the image.

For example, when viewing a 6x4 print one usually holds it in one's hand at a distance of, maybe, 12 to 18". When one views a wall mural one stands much further away. If one tried to view a 10' mural at 12" one would only see a small part of it, probably in unnecessary detail - the overall picture wouldn't be seen.

So, that being the case, is there an optimal viewing angle for any given image?

For the purposes of my argument, let's say that there is.

Now, if a 3 MP camera can produce an acceptable image at a size of 6x4" when viewed at the optimal angle, with no pixels being discernable, it follows that the same image could be equally well viewed enlarged to 12"x8" if viewed from twice the distance, maintaining the same, optimal viewing angle. The pixels in the image would subjectively be the same size as in the first instance.

Similarly if enlarged to 24" x 16" and again viewed from further away the pixels would still not come into view provided the optimal viewing angle is maintained.

And so on.

So my basic theory is that, unless one wishes to view an image at an unnecessarily close distance, there is an optimum number of megapixels which a camera needs to offer, beyond which extra pixels may be an unnecessary and expensive luxury.

Can anyone tell me what that optimum number of pixels might be, I wonder?

Strikes me that some people may be looking too closely at their pictures. When one selects 100% on a high resolution image you are in fact zooming in to a relatively small part of the picture. At that level of zoom it would take an array of 6 monitors to see the whole picture taken on a 6MP camera with your monitor set to a horizontal resolution of 1024 pixels - a lot more for a 14MP image. It's a bit like taking a magnifying glass to a large print.

Are people expecting too much I wonder?

Thanks for that ChrisA

Is there a back focus adjustment on the K10D? I can't find any reference in the manual to one.

I have done comparisons with/without a front filter and even the plain glass ones can soften an image. Make sure you have a high quality filter if you are going to use one.

iceblinker
thanks for those links

Considering the relatively small increase in resolution that the K20D offers over the K10D (roughly 1.18 in linear terms) I can't imagine that Pentax re-engineered the 18-55 for that sole purpose.

They must surely have considered the MkI to be flawed in a more fundamental way to consider it worth upgrading.