All Forum Comments
Comment by JAK posted on what am I doing wrong - Vingnette at 01/12/2013 - 16:41
johnriley wrote:
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.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.
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
Comment by JAK posted on An interesting thought regarding the K5 Vs K3 Conundrum. at 01/12/2013 - 10:59
grahamcoad wrote:
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.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.
Quote:
But here's a question? I know some peeps are loving the extra picels, but where's your personal limit on this?
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?!But here's a question? I know some peeps are loving the extra picels, but where's your personal limit on this?
John K
Comment by JAK posted on An interesting thought regarding the K5 Vs K3 Conundrum. at 01/12/2013 - 10:31
The Photozone review reported that the FA77 suffered from purple fringing at wide apertures.
http://www.photozone.de/reviews/128-pentax-smc-fa-77mm-f18-limited-review--test-...
John K
http://www.photozone.de/reviews/128-pentax-smc-fa-77mm-f18-limited-review--test-...
John K
Comment by JAK posted on HD coating does make a difference... at 30/11/2013 - 22:40
You've all missed the point that the article linked to was already basically copied from elsewhere!
[quote="the Guardian"]They have been compiled by a Canadian photographer, Francis Vachon. I have edited them. Go to his site to read every detail.[/quote]
John K
[quote="the Guardian"]They have been compiled by a Canadian photographer, Francis Vachon. I have edited them. Go to his site to read every detail.[/quote]
John K
Comment by JAK posted on The © Symbol Woes? at 30/11/2013 - 20:59
AndrewsWildlife wrote:
This is an old topic but I think the Sigma 500mm F/4.5 is a winnner.
I should hope it is what they cost!This is an old topic but I think the Sigma 500mm F/4.5 is a winnner.
John K
Comment by JAK posted on K5 Lens dilemma for wildlife at 30/11/2013 - 18:20
If you have access to a real Pentax remote and a TV remote with a learning function a couple of spare buttons can be programmed to remotely trigger the camera. Just to point out that the K-01 and K-3 are less forgiving of the cheaper remotes that are available to the extent that they simply seem not to work!
John K
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Remote trigger phone app at 30/11/2013 - 16:42
Google translate makes that:
So there you have it - Ricoh has a full-size machine and in lens stabilization. Full frame confirmed at last.
John K
Quote:
Ricoh is 60 mm F2.8 macro is pending. Because it is a macro lens with image stabilization corresponding to the full-size, Pentax ( Ricoh has a full-size machine), I might carry out the image stabilization on the lens rather than the body side.
I'm not going to argue with the translation!Ricoh is 60 mm F2.8 macro is pending. Because it is a macro lens with image stabilization corresponding to the full-size, Pentax ( Ricoh has a full-size machine), I might carry out the image stabilization on the lens rather than the body side.
So there you have it - Ricoh has a full-size machine and in lens stabilization. Full frame confirmed at last.
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Macro Patents at 30/11/2013 - 14:25
BrianL wrote:
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.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
John K
Comment by JAK posted on An interesting thought regarding the K5 Vs K3 Conundrum. at 30/11/2013 - 12:25
That seems a slightly confused argument TBH (the article that is, not JR's comment.) He talks of wanting a simpler camera implying the K-3 is too much and then wishes a K-3 with a 16mp sensor. I can't that see that a K-3 variant with a 16mp sensor would cost significantly less to produce or be any simpler to operate if it has all the K-3 features other than the sensor. Quite likely many of the new K-3 features will appear in the K-30 successor together with some new ones. So surely, for now at least, the K-30 (not K-50) must be that 'lighter' camera' he wishes!
John K
John K
Comment by JAK posted on An interesting thought regarding the K5 Vs K3 Conundrum. at 29/11/2013 - 17:02
How do the images look in camera, do you see the vignette there as well?
John K