On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew Hunt wrote: > >>On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, P.J. Alling >><[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What is it with outrageous Pixel counts? >> >>A 42 MP full-frame sensor has a pixel size that's intermediate between >>the K-5 and K-3. Why do you think it's outrageous? > > I think he's referring to the total number of pixels, not the pixel > density.
But I don't understand the complaint. Why is a large number of pixels a bad thing? The K-3 and K-5 show that pixels of about this physical size offer very good noise performance and dynamic range, and good lenses still take advantage of the resolution. If you can fabricate those pixels on a full-frame sensor, why wouldn't you? What's the motivation for wanting fewer pixels? -- 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.
