How good is 24meg realy ?

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Putting blame, where blame is due

Donald B wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Donald B wrote:

As every one knows I shoot with a k7 as well as some compacts, most of the test shots we see are of contrasty well difined detail subjects, the reason I havnt upgraded is due to the great rendering of skin tones that the k7 produces, I shot a dance school this weekend using the 7100 and k7 using both jpeg and flash wb on both cameras, the d7100 did a great job overall but I have to wonder is 24 meg to much or was the 7100 designed for detail rather than texture detail the photos looked fabulous but people are buying these cameras to do large crops ?.

these are %300 crops

Your comparison is flawed in several different ways. Four major problems:

a) one of the images seem to be a bit out of focus or suffer from motion blur (or possibly a combination of both).

b) you are comparing the output from two different jpeg engines, without saying anyting about their respective settings. And Nikon jpegs are well known to be soft compared to those of other manufacturers when shot with default values. To properly compare, use raw files, and process the images the same way.

c) the images are shot with two different superzoom lenses (who tend to have all sorts of optical issues) at different focal lengths which make the comparison a bit unpredictable to say the least.

d) when looking at 300%, much of what you see actually depends more on the interpolation done by the software, then by the cameras who initially produced the images. Comparing two images from the same camera, shot with the same lens, with the same settings at 300% can be very useful, but in a situation like this it is more likely to cause confusion then clarity.

Look, I can understand you are not happy with the results of the D7100 in this instance, but I am pretty sure you get the cause and effect a bit wrong. It is not the number of (or size of) pixels who cause the issue you see - they are most likely caused by a mix of other reasons unrelated to the actual sensors involved.

you have missed my point,

Well, you seemed to have completely missed the one I attempted to make as well

their is nothing wrong with the 7100

Who claimed it was?

and I have to shoot with zoom lens stopped down which buy the way can produce just as good detail as any of my high quality primes.

A zoom lens can produce good detail, yes, but you are comparing two different extremely complex superzoom lenses at different focal lengths, and for all we know they can (and probably does) behave different.

its a matter of weather 24 meg is better and from my latest experience its not ( on textured surfaces)

And I tried to convey the point that the experience you are referring to probably has very little, if anything, to do with pixel count.

There are to many variables at play here, besides megapixel count, to prove much of anything.

and the IR images show the same results as mine.

I do not agree they do.

I will buy the K3 no questions unless someone brings out an evf camera with the same hdmi output as the k7 (which blows the 7100 out of the water ) because I was having some problems with my k7 on that shoot and loved the focus points on the d7100. I must say also that the images are falling apart faster than my xz1 photos. and im struggling to match the tones of the k7. nothing new the 5dmk11 is just as bad.

You are comparing the output from different lenses at different focal lengths, different jpg engines with unknown settings plus a whole list of other small and large variables who affect the end result ... And of all the variables, you pick one - the megapixel count - and seem to think it is the main reason for the differences you see. I would argue it is probably one of the least important factors in causing the differences you see.

You may or may not like higher megapixel counts, that is entirely your choice. But don't blame it for problems it did not cause.

The K3 will very probably give higher overall image quality then the K7, if nothing else, simply by virtue of being newer - Pentax like all camera manufacturers fine tune their skills and get better and better at getting performance out of sensors.

And the K3 will very likely produce more detailed images, and related to that, it will most probably render skin textures better. It will - in the same situation - very likely show less noise, have a improved dynamic range and somewhat more accurate colors - the typical things we have seen improvements in over the past years.

One drawback of the higher megapixel count is larger files, but that also points to the core of the difference - the files are larger simply because they contain more information. For any given output, a K3 will give you more data from which to create the final image.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow