Well there is a difference between the Nikon D3200 specs also, and they don't have shake reduction - so I doubt if that is the explanation. The "24.3 MP" Nikon D3200 ,which purportedly uses the same sensor and has the exact same Image Size pixel dimensions as the K-3 (6,016 x 4,000), states: 24.2 effective pixels and 24.7 million total pixels (the exact same number as Pentax).
So I maintain that the "23.35" on the K-3 is a typo. Both the K-3 and K-3 ii have shake reduction, so that doesn't really change the equation (by exactly a megapixel)? On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: > > > Darren Addy wrote: >> >> I gotta believe that is a typo on the original K-3 specs (it's on the >> Ricoh page that way also) but both cameras say that there are 24.71 >> "Total Pixels" so I don't see any way the one would differ from the >> other. I'd chalk it up to a typo that nobody caught. The K-3 is called >> a 24.3MP camera most places (as is the K-3 ii) > > > I expect that the sensor area is slightly more than the image area to allow > some wiggle room when using shake reduction. > > > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
