I read a piece over on pentax forums about why more megapixels (beyond what the lens can resolve) isn't a complete waste of time. I can't find it now but it did do a pretty good job of dismantling some of the received wisdom about the generally opposed move to ever higher pixel counts.

But I would say that while around 15 to 16MP is already way more than enough for 99% of uses, it's inevitable that pixel counts will keep on steadily rising, although slowing now, as will DR and ISO limits. I'm fairly ambivalent about the megapixel count (neither for or against it), but the DR and ISO improvement is more interesting.

A few years ago people were already saying that 10MP was overkill, and that going higher would cause too much noise, well compare a K10D vs a K5 at ISO1600....

I think a little judicious levels work and sharpening would unlock some really nice images from these shots. Was the last one on 'tungsten' WB setting? Looks very blue indeed!

Which Ltds do you have your eye on Don?

It works for me.

But what are the actual problems, other than 'redundancy'? Are the extra pixels really redundant even, if they can draw fine details more smoothly even if not contributing to *more* detail.

Shame on these Pentax users who would rather debate copyright issues than congratulate the photographer!

Well done Ken! Where's the link to the shot then?

Would it cause a problem per se if the sensor exceeded the resolution of the lens? This already happens with many of the lenses we use.

There are some advantages to more megapixels, making the bayer pattern of colour photosites finer for example. But I agree we are now at a point where ISO performance/DR are the main priorities, and I think the manufacturer's recognise this. So I wouldn't expect any step backward on that front.

I'm saying nothing!

Futile it may be - in all likelihood it's what we're gonna get! The 16mp sensor will trickle down to the Kr's replacement. [Crystal ball mode/OFF].

Congrats and welcome. You picked a great model for Astrophotography