[RobA_Oz]

I don't understand why mirrorless folks are such evangelists.

Probably the same reason why evangelism is so common in religion, not to mention its modern-day offshoots of business management, politics, lifestyle choices and sports: it’s as much or more about the individual’s issues as the product or idea.

[ZombieArmy]

Some of us have the k-01 so no boats were missed. Mirror fearing vampire pentaxians were happy as well or not.

With the k-02 nowhere in sight, the KP is a small exception to us mirror fearing folk.

[VoiceOfReason]

I saw this and wondered if something like this would make its way into the next K1. Sony's Next Full-Frame Sensor to Offer 60MP, 8K, 16-Bit RAW: Report

Could you imagine jumping right past 4k and into 8k video, plus 60mp resolution? It could be interesting.

[fredralphfred]

Hate to tell you this, but it's never been the sensor that has limited video in Pentax products. It's the processing.

Larger camera manufacturers have more money to dump into custom processors & advanced battery management (the big problem). Pentax AFAIK takes off-the-shelf chips from other manufacturers and rebadges them, hence the "trailing edge" video. Since Pentax claims to make still cameras for photographers, it's not really a priority for them.

Video processing takes lots of compute power, needs lots of bandwidth, and hence takes lots of battery juice and generates lots of heat. These work greatly against battery life and require custom silicon.

[normhead]

I saw this and wondered if something like this would make its way into the next K1. Sony's Next Full-Frame Sensor to Offer 60MP, 8K, 16-Bit RAW: Report

Could you imagine jumping right past 4k and into 8k video, plus 60mp resolution? It could be interesting.

I can't even imaging caring about either 4k or 8k video. I'm still waiting for the promised 200 EV organic sensors.

[VoiceOfReason]

I'm more interested in the binning ability because I have been using my K1 more for astrophotography than anything else. If they have video binning that would be amazing for planetary imaging.

[reh321]

I'm more interested in the binning ability because I have been using my K1 more for astrophotography than anything else. If they have video binning that would be amazing for planetary imaging.

Processor remains the primary impediment to their making progress.

[DeadJohn]

This thread is redundant with Could this be the in the Pentax K1 mark3 - PentaxForums.com

[BrianR]

I'm thinking the upgraded fancy sensor would also "upgrade" the price significantly.

---------- Post added 11-28-18 at 12:01 PM ----------

If they have video binning that would be amazing for planetary imaging.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely curious how video comes into astrophotography.

[Rico]

These sensors are good candidates for the LXD and MXD interchangeable Viewfinder DSLR system Ricoh/Pentax should be doing. No need for a new lens mount just change between EVF for mirrorless operation and OVF viewfinders.

The most interesting thing for me is these sensors capture 16-bit RAW files. This is significant. To even entertain using such sensors Ricoh/Pentax would need to move to UHS-II. It is impossible to think it could be done without doing so. Better cpu's and bigger buffers are useless without moving to UHS-II. Ricoh has manufactured their own CPU's including the Accelerator Unit. KP and K-1II owners see the benefits of that.

Let's hope the cost to manufacture actually goes down which is entirely possible with electronics.

[MMVIII]

Hate to tell you this, but it's never been the sensor that has limited video in Pentax products. It's the processing.

Larger camera manufacturers have more money to dump into custom processors & advanced battery management (the big problem). Pentax AFAIK takes off-the-shelf chips from other manufacturers and rebadges them, hence the "trailing edge" video. Since Pentax claims to make still cameras for photographers, it's not really a priority for them.

Video processing takes lots of compute power, needs lots of bandwidth, and hence takes lots of battery juice and generates lots of heat. These work greatly against battery life and require custom silicon.

Well, but they're not entirely independent either. There is not a single camera that offers better video specs with the same sensor as K1 (D810, and probably a Sony A7R), or KP (D7200...).
And for most parts Pentax-PRIME shares the Fujitsu Milbeaut with Leica-MAESTRO, Nikon-Expeed, Sigma-True and it does not be the worst part of the imaging gang. The limiting factor is not that others might have the power and developed custom processors but that Pentax is not offering a system with the latest generation, which is no problem for stills image quality (they are still top) but somehow lacks in video. I personally don't care, that's why I value these sensors very high.

[MossyRocks]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely curious how video comes into astrophotography.

Basically the best ways to get great images of planets is to take a pile of shots and from those shots only take the best. The best shots are then aligned and stacked to create a single low noise image. If one is manually clicking away there is a fair amount of time between shots which for a rapidly rotating planet like Jupiter means that you have fewer to work with since I think the rotation starts to blur things after about 4 minutes. Manually clicking you might get 480 total shots, assuming 2 FPS, but with video you would get 7280, assuming 30FPS. Thus you should have many more good ones and maybe even capture some great ones you would have missed. The solution is to take a video and treat frame as an individual shot. Programs like RegiStax and AutoStakkert!3 can do the alignment and stacking and one of them will work with video.

Basically you are going for those lucky shot where the atmosphere is exceptionally clam and clear. These images still need a lot of post processing to bring out the details but people in their backyards have gotten some great images. Add in the high pixel density with quality lenses and one could see some really nice images. I have given shots of Jupiter a try and even with a 300mm f/4 blasting away in burst mode on a K-3 the best I have managed is some slight banding and maybe the great red spot. Jupiter in this setup is only about 17 pixels across if I remember correctly.

[gaweidert]

Well, it may be a great sensor, but after getting a camera with one you will need one of those $3,000 gaming computers to work on the images without taking a nap while the image processing takes place. My K1 and K1-II already have me looking that way.

[normhead]

Well, it may be a great sensor, but after getting a camera with one you will need one of those $3,000 gaming computers to work on the images without taking a nap while the image processing takes place. My K1 and K1-II already have me looking that way.

I'm using an i7 quad core and K-1 images noticeably reduce my processing speed. Imagine what 60 MP would do. And I'm printing 42 inch abstract prints from my K-3. What would an average guy like me even contemplate 60 MP? Most of the time I don't need 36 MP. I just use it because I have it.

And when I'm shooting my K-3, unless I'm shooting in low light and have to go over 800 ISO, I don't miss 36 MP.

[MossyRocks]

Let's hope the cost to manufacture actually goes down which is entirely possible with electronics.

Most of the cost of chips is in the development and yields. Material cost per chip would be the same assuming that the same sized wafers are used, that the process has the same number of steps, and yields remain the same between chips of the same size. So in an ideal world the cost of these sensors would be the same as existing full frame sensors.

However as feature size shrinks the yields typically go down, especially at the beginning until the process is fully optimized so I would expect these to be slightly more expensive because of that. Given the substantially higher pixel density there may be an additional layer needed for the support electronics which will add steps to the process and also further decrease yields. Here yield will be the key cost difference driver and that difference will likely decrease as the process matures.

Unfortunately the cost of sensors won't be decreasing like we have seen with so many other microchips. This is because the area of each type of sensor remains basically constant so the price decrease that have been seen from Moore's Law with other chips don't really apply here. However image sensors have benefited from it by getting ever greater pixel densities for a given sensor area, and less noise at a given pixel size.