Argument for a K-2 with a 16 MP sensor

Started Nov 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Flat view
Zvonimir Tosic
Zvonimir Tosic Senior Member • Posts: 2,563
Argument for a K-2 with a 16 MP sensor

K-3 comes with excellent new tech, but the camera has a 24MP sensor in it. 24MP in APS-C translates in some 50+MP worth of pixel density in an FF sensor.

What would require to obtain super sharp images from a 50MP FF sensor? Even D800 users cannot answer that precisely, and they were already complaining about 36MP requiring better lenses and slower pace than D700.

Definitely requires a wholly different technique than merely using a 12MP or 16MP FF sensor.

Similarly, K-3 is definitely not a point and shoot and be happy DSLR camera. It is a serious tool indeed, and requires a different approach to image taking — much more different and considerate than anything we’ve practised, learned and enjoyed with the K7, K5/II/IIs.

Which is precisely why I believe that Ricoh Imaging really needs one more, ‘lighter’ than K-3 camera model in between the K-50 and the K-3, with a more modest pixel count — but with K-3 improvements in all other areas which current K-50 and K-5II do not have.

So all the K-3 tech, but with a more modest sensor. For many, K-3 is a giant step forward, and also not a necessary one. However, K-3 tech deserves to be used in a camera designed for more casual  and relaxed type of shooting, I believe, so therefore I advocate the camera that has benefits of the K-3 but is less serious in terms of extra demands.

Any thoughts?

-- hide signature --

Zvonimir Tosic
“A portrait is not made in the camera, but on either side of it.”
— Edward Steichen

Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Pentax K-3 Pentax K-5 Pentax K-50 Pentax K-7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow