On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > Darren Addy wrote: > >> Wow. I thought that most of us had advanced beyond thinking that megapixels >> was the only metric to use when comparing DSLR capabilities. > > Dear Darren, > > 1. What are you comparing? You haven't touched it yet.
What are bashing? You haven't touched it yet. > 2. You beat the same old drum even when Pentax now has a higher resolution > body. Not sure what you are referring to when you say "beat the same old drum", and maybe you haven't been following the earlier threads on the K-3 specs - but this camera is upgraded in waaaay more ways than just a higher resolution sensor. To me the biggest thing that unlocks most of its capabilities is the "PRIME III" image processor (Fujitsu Milbeaut version 7). Others are intrigued by the innovative, selectable AA. Others are happy that Pentax finally appears to be catching up in the AF arena. ALL of these upgrades in one camera? > 3. MP is one of the few attributes that can be stated unequivocally as > a number and is a known metric. This is certainly true, but it is like judging a computer based only on the speed of the processor and not looking at the other components like bus speed, etc. etc. Cameras and computers are similar in that, just because a new processor comes out (or a new sensor) there may not be hardware and software that can take advantage of all of its capabilities for a year or two. That is why the age of the processor (even if it is 1-1/2 year old technology) doesn't matter. The PRIME III can handle the data that sensor puts out. The Nikon D7100 is an example of a camera with the same sensor, but crippled by using the previous generation of image processor in concert with it. (Nikon - and other manufacturers that use the Milbeaut v7 - will catch up, and probably very soon, but there is a reason why Nikon guru Thom Hogan was moaning about how the K-3 meets the needs of a certain demographic of "serious photographer" that Nikon seems to be neglecting). > 4. If you don't believe imaging sensor resolution is not among the > most important metrics in determining the technical 'quality' of a > recorded image (along with the resolving power of the lens at X > aperture, and yes noise characteristics, etc.), then you're missing > something. Where did you get the impression that I don't think it is "among the most important" components? > > Your use of the word 'only' was presumptuous and mistaken. [Rereads the message that I was replying to.] Yep. The higher resolution sensor was the ONLY thing you mentioned. Not that being presumptuous and mistaken is entirely foreign to me, however. :) -- Nothing is sure but death and Pentaxes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
