Are you willing to put your name by this claim? I only ask because I agree with
Originally posted by blende8
For a circular lens a 2:1 sensor makes no sense at all.
It is wasting valuable space.
So unless the official word comes from pentax I am not inclined to believe the sensor is 16:9. Ultimately it would be a very strange engineering decision, and if it happens to be true I will gladly eat crow in front of you (will you offer the same if the tables are turned?). It just does no make sense to waste that much of the image circle. Then again, maybe the likes of us forum geeks know more than dozens of gainfully employed engineers at pentax
But, it is as of the middle of last year. This camera is on the shelves in Feb./Mar. this year, and the technology of AF this fast has been known. Its just a matter of knowing the importance of including it.
Originally posted by nosnoop
K20D should be MUCH cheaper than D300.
If the K20HD is approx. $1300 when they become available, and the Nikon D300 is about $1700 at that time, most of the price difference is being able to say you own a "Nikon".
Originally posted by nose noop
If you like D300, then buy a D300
But then I won't be able to have the wide screen, or make home movies.
if it does have video then awesome and if it doesnt then fine.. why is everyone getting so caught up with it? if the pentax has video do you know what that would do to this industry? Pentax will change everything think about it an DSLR with video(if it does) + also a photography tool. and this can prolly just mean video caption mode.. low megapixel 1080p fps.. honestly though how many average photographers make posters? nothing is for sure for sure until i see this thing in the store and im holding it. especially with the panasonic 32gb sdhc class 6 memory card out soon it will be a great vacation camera.. im not gonna get all hyped up with everything.. im still happy i can use my old lenses. and I thought as Pentaxian are true photographers the specs dont matter to us ISO etc etc cause real photographers catch the moment not the picture that has less noise. look at the most memorable pictures was all of those pictures clean? no noise? perfectly focus? NO..
Without a crop factor of 0.92x (larger than FF), my friends who use Canon 5D's and Nikon D3's will continue to jeer at me and deride my lowly APS-C self. How much longer must my fragile Pentaxian self esteem endure the slings and arrows of bitter misfortune? I hang my head in shame.
You currently have no waste issues with the DA lenses, right?
If this wide format does come out, those same DA lenses will be used with the same APS-C height plus *more width*.
So it's opposite to your waste concern, it'd be using more of the image circle than APS-C does.
I am skeptical. Why the hell would anyone put video capability into an advanced DSLR? So there are more electronics to screw up and more weight to carry? If you want to shoot crappy digicam videos, keep a P&S in your pocket and your DSLR around your neck.
3:2 utilizes ~58% of the effective image circle, while the number for the 16:9 format is ~54%.
True mathematically, but not reduced from 58% to 54% in reality.
One tends to think 16:9 means height is reduced a little to accommodate larger width, but in this case the sensor height is still ~16mm while the width is increased to become 16:9. In other words it expands into the image circle area that's not used by 3:2 APS-C.
Video/Still convergence is just a matter of time. Its really only an issue for two reasons - memory access speed and shutter. Since both issues are solved electronically its a non-issue long term. Why? Electronic solutions are almost free with time. This sounds like it will sell like hotcakes to the still journalist. Many major newspapers are already toying around with video coverage for their online presence. Its what the end client wants.
I shoot video for a living. I can't count how many times the client wants video AND stills. Their desire for stills is largely driven by the web, and you don't need infinite megapixels for that.
What you DO need, for both video AND stills - is properly exposed sharp in-focus pictures. ONLY difference is the frame rate.
PLUS- you don't know how exciting it is for a "creative" video production to have the lens access the Pentax mount has. Do you have any idea what motion picture lenses cost? If you want to see this kind of approach to video in action, google up the RED digital cinema camera. Live histograms, decent megapixels, solid state storage paradigm . Its making waves in high end cinematography circles. If the new Pentax indeed has 1080P video capabilities and the quality compares with what Sony and Panasonic are currently selling to video pros in the news market ----- WOW.
Contrary to what's been said by the OP, it didn't came from the Dubai conf. (the post isfrom january 7) but from a guy who says he knows a Korean guy who says he has info on the K20D (see OP original post) and also K1D FF APS-H(sic!) cameras....
Now I believe.
Last edited by lol101; 01-11-2008 at 06:51 AM.
Reason: added some info
I don't need/want a 16*9 camera. Ok, ok, from time to time I may want to use this format; but simply cropping a 3*2 frame will do the trick (with a slight loss of resolution). The few of us which likes this format would be happy, though.
For HD video there is a lot of room for cropping, due to the huge difference in resolution. So, the sensor still can be 3*2.
Also, the mirror and the viewfinder will need to be redesigned; otherwise, you'll compose as with a 3*2 camera. The shutter could be OK, since it's bigger than the sensor.
Then, why would Pentax make a 16*9 format camera?
Someone else that was also there didn't say a word about new aspect ratio, but he did say it has iso6400 and that iso3200 looks very good when inspected on camera LCD (just K20D or both?). He also said that K200D is much more than Alpha 200 although the price remains to be seen.
Originally posted by nosnoop 
