[KiloHotelphoto]

You also need good lenses and good support when shooting with high megapixel bodies.

A lens and tripod you use on a k3 may give you great images but on a high mp camera you will see it’s flaws and any shake.

[RonHendriks1966]

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.

This does me make think of the restauration of the painting Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue III of Barnett Newman that was hit with a knife in an Amsterdam museum. For restauration it should have got 2 million red dots and instead it got painted with a roller.......

Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue - Wikipedia

Who needs all those pixels....

[normhead]

You also need good lenses and good support when shooting with high megapixel bodies.

A lens and tripod you use on a k3 may give you great images but on a high mp camera you will see it’s flaws and any shake.

A K-3 pixel density translates to 51 MP on FF. It's not that much different.

It's kind of funny how often people gt this wrong. You don't need a better lens because of the MP count, you need a better lens for smaller pixels sites.

People say a K-1 needs a better lens than a K-3, well, only on the edges. Within the crop sensor area, the K-1 is less demanding, not more.

[BrianR]

Basically you are going for those lucky shot where the atmosphere is exceptionally clam and clear.

Ahh, thanks for the description. I get stacking images, but it seemed like the trade off between lower resolution and bit depth vs fewer images would often be a wash. That the atmosphere changes rapidly enough that you through away many images makes sense that you could start to favour video. Smarter in-camera binning would of course help. Are there any examples out there of the smarter in-camera binning bringing noticeable improvements for this type of photography? It's supposedly in some sony cameras already?

The ability to rapidly record many frames at a decent resolution has interesting potential for still imagery. Bring on the 8k I say!

[Pål Jensen]

A K-3 pixel density translates to 51 MP on FF. It's not that much different.

It's kind of funny how often people gt this wrong. You don't need a better lens because of the MP count, you need a better lens for smaller pixels sites.

People say a K-1 needs a better lens than a K-3, well, only on the edges. Within the crop sensor area, the K-1 is less demanding, not more.

If a Pentax camera will get this sensor, and the body is reasonably compact, it could double as a great APS body as well. Albeit an expensive one....

[normhead]

Ahh, thanks for the description. I get stacking images, but it seemed like the trade off between lower resolution and bit depth vs fewer images would often be a wash. That the atmosphere changes rapidly enough that you through away many images makes sense that you could start to favour video. Smarter in-camera binning would of course help. Are there any examples out there of the smarter in-camera binning bringing noticeable improvements for this type of photography? It's supposedly in some sony cameras already?

The ability to rapidly record many frames at a decent resolution has interesting potential for still imagery. Bring on the 8k I say!

This is why Sharp’s $77,000 8K camera and their new 70-inch 8K television (poised for a $9,000 price tag) are so important. It was just two years ago that Sharp debuted the first 8K TV for $133,000.

https://fstoppers.com/originals/cheapest-package-shoot-8k-video-hint-its-not-cheap-210601

So what would that actually be worth to you?

[MossyRocks]

Are there any examples out there of the smarter in-camera binning bringing noticeable improvements for this type of photography?

Not that I know of but that seems like it would be hugely expensive to do in camera in terms of specialized software, specialized hardware (ASICs), and power budget. It could be done but why one would want to do that on camera seems pointless since it would be a feature that is used by very few people and software exists that does that already on something that doesn't run off of a tiny battery. The ability to record video at high frame rates and resolution would be the biggest feature for this and that translates into something that others care about too.

[BrianR]

The Cheapest Package to Shoot 8K Video (Hint: It's Not Cheap) | Fstoppers

So what would that actually be worth to you?

I've no interest in an 8k TV so I can save some money that way, but as you can see the price of this sort of thing can be expected to drop pretty dramatically over a few years. Realistically it's more likely 4k will be on whatever my next dslr is and I'll find utility with that.

---------- Post added 11-28-18 at 02:36 PM ----------

Not that I know of but that seems like it would be hugely expensive to do in camera in terms of specialized software, specialized hardware (ASICs), and power budget. It could be done but why one would want to do that on camera seems pointless since it would be a feature that is used by very few people and software exists that does that already on something that doesn't run off of a tiny battery. The ability to record video at high frame rates and resolution would be the biggest feature for this and that translates into something that others care about too.

I assumed the primary purpose of the weighted pixel binning was for the video people. The down sampling from the full resolution of the sensor to 8k or 4k happens in-camera, so from this perspective it makes sense to do a good job of it. Planetary photography would be a secondary application, and since the OP seemed excited about the improvements it would bring, I'm wondering if it's just theoretical or if there are any practical examples (as they do say it's a feature in existing sony cameras).

[Rico]

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.

MossyRocks, Moore's Law has nothing to do with cost to manufacture it has to do with the rate at which transistors are miniaturized. They are always refining the manufacture process to reduce costs. One reason CCD was left behind was due to CMOS being cheaper to manufacture on mass.

Moore's Law has more to do with Sensor's reaching 60mp which is nearly doubling the amount of pixel sites for the same area. Canon demoed a 120mp sensor within the last year. People are against higher pixel count.

[Belnan]

This topic feels familiar. Sure the 60mp sensor seems exciting but a fast focusing, more responsive, higher FPS version of the K1 with the 36 mp sensor would be more than almost anyone here would need. Like many things this is a wait and see kind of deal. It is encouraging that Sony is making these sensors available.

[SunnyG.]

(SR5) Hot: These are the next two new Sony Full Frame 16bit sensors!!! (speculation: for A9r and A7sIII???) - sonyalpharumors sonyalpharumors

A fast 36mp sensor would be the sweet spot for many people.

So two Pentax Cameras we can hope for. 36mp with 4K 60p and 10fps shooting speed. Also on sensor pdaf and a Samsung made processor. At 2000$. Seems like a bargain. And a 60mp camera with 5fps and 4K 60p. At 3000$. Seems like a Canon 5DSR killer. Wishful thinking.

[Rondec]

The interesting thing is the rumor that Pentax is releasing at least one new full frame next year. I know many of the things that are due to be improved in the K-1 sphere and honestly, they could do so pretty easily using an older sensor, such as is in the A7r II and if they wanted to do 4K video, that sensor would do it.

The big thing about Pentax not buying the cutting edge, just released sensors is that it tends to keep the price down on their cameras. Not a bad thing when you consider how much image quality they were able to milk out of the ancient D800 sensor.

[MossyRocks]

MossyRocks, Moore's Law has nothing to do with cost to manufacture it has to do with the rate at which transistors are miniaturized.

The costs of chips is determined by the area of the chip, yields, number of steps in the process, and development costs, thus in a lot of cases Moore's Law does directly affect the cost of a chip, just not camera sensors since there isn't a die shrink to be had. I brought up Moore's Law because the post I was responding to was hoping for a fall in the prices of these sensors like what has been seen with other electronics. A big reason for the fall in price of other electronics was because of Moore's Law allowing chips to be produced at a substantially lower cost. If you can pack in twice the transistors in a given area then you can produce almost twice the number of chips in the same amount of time using the same amount of resources. There will be some additional losses from the decrease in yield but that is more than made up for by the number of viable chips produced per wafer from the die shrink in most cases. The number of steps in the process has remained the same as has the material cost and so has the chip development cost. This does not apply to sensors since all full frame sensors are about the same size, same with APS-C sensors, and all others since there is no die shrink that happens because of Moore's Law unlike other chips.

I did state that sensors have benefited from Moore's Law by having ever greater pixel densities and lower noise at a given pixel size. When it comes to pixel size the pixel pitch that the K-3 had (3.88um) is basically diffraction limited with a lens at f/2.8 (airy disc diameter of 3.7um) but the K-1 with it's larger pixel pitch (4.86um) isn't diffraction limited at f/2.8. Of course this assumes a perfect ideal lens which we are not using most of the time. When shooting at f/8 on a k-3 the airy disc created by a point light source (10.7um) would almost completely cover a 3x3 grid of pixels. However with some software this can be handled reasonably well and add in pixel shift with the K-3ii and newer cameras and we really are at about the practical limit of what can be achieved with an interchangeable lens camera. A K-1 full frame sensor at the same pixel density as a K-3 would have a resolution of around 57 megapixels and this one being at 60 seems close enough for comparison and is a nice round number that people like.

[Winder]

(SR5) Hot: These are the next two new Sony Full Frame 16bit sensors!!! (speculation: for A9r and A7sIII???) - sonyalpharumors sonyalpharumors

A fast 36mp sensor would be the sweet spot for many people.

Ricoh doesn't have a history of using new tech sensors in their cameras. I don't think we will see this sensor in a Ricoh body anytime soon. This is a stacked BSI sensor, so its designed for speed. Ricoh doesn't do speed.

The new Sony 54MP sensor is just a full frame version of the sensor found in the A6500. That is relatively older sensor tech and much more likely to be used by Ricoh. This would be a better option for landscape photographers.

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 08:18 AM ----------

This topic feels familiar. Sure the 60mp sensor seems exciting but a fast focusing, more responsive, higher FPS version of the K1 with the 36 mp sensor would be more than almost anyone here would need. Like many things this is a wait and see kind of deal. It is encouraging that Sony is making these sensors available.

It would be more than what most people here need and if Ricoh isn't interested in expanding their customer base beyond this forum there is not reason to make a faster camera. But, if Ricoh is interested in expanding and growing its market share then they need to look at features and specs beyond what this forum needs.

[Mikesul]

Thanks, Winder. This is interesting information. The A6500 had a great 24mp sensor so if they can scale it up to 54 it would be fine. Prior to the A9 sony users looked to the A6500 for speed.