[Rondec]

I really don't think the K-01 was intended for shooters who would even consider the limitations of 12-bit RAW files. It is a sophisticated snapshot camera that can do some very high quality shots in the right hands. It isn't, wasn't intended to be and shouldn't be mistaken for a mid-level or high-level dSLR.

These questions are like asking why a four-banger Impreza doesn't have a turbocharger. Clearly Subaru has disabled some of the HP potential on the basic model when they could just as easily have put a turbo on all of them.

Get my drift? Different cars for different buyers. Wait for the turbocharged K-02 (and expect it to be in the Newson body).

I guess. The question is why Pentax skimped on the processor and memory in the camera. It couldn't have been that expensive to at least let the camera shoot 5 fps for 6 or 7 RAW, could it?

[creampuff]

I guess. The question is why Pentax skimped on the processor and memory in the camera. It couldn't have been that expensive to at least let the camera shoot 5 fps for 6 or 7 RAW, could it?

That's where you're wrong. Firstly cameras are always built or specced to a particular price point or feature set based on a defined target market. While it is technically feasible to have a high fps camera shooting RAW, it would likely mean a more expensive camera and outside the target price point of the intended demographic. Remember Pentax users are for the most part not prepared to pay a lot, that's why they use Pentax, the brand with the most bang for the buck.

[audiobomber]

I guess. The question is why Pentax skimped on the processor and memory in the camera. It couldn't have been that expensive to at least let the camera shoot 5 fps for 6 or 7 RAW, could it?

Every dollar counts toward the final amount in the lower tier. The K-30 was designed to compete with the offerings from other manufacturers, not the K-5. The choices Pentax made to up the ante vs. the competition (two wheels, WR) are the right ones IMO. I have no hesitation in recommending the K-30 over the D3200 or 650D.

[pinholecam]

I guess. The question is why Pentax skimped on the processor and memory in the camera. It couldn't have been that expensive to at least let the camera shoot 5 fps for 6 or 7 RAW, could it?

It adds up very fast in the product costing with all these extra juicy bits here and there.
For the price of the K01 right now where I am, I am not complaining, its damn good a camera for the price so long as the user knows/willing to work around some creature comfort limitations.
I can see myself getting one at the next price drop as a MF platform or backup if the upcoming K5 replacement does not impress me.

That's where you're wrong. Firstly cameras are always built or specced to a particular price point or feature set based on a defined target market. While it is technically feasible to have a high fps camera shooting RAW, it would likely mean a more expensive camera and outside the target price point of the intended demographic. Remember Pentax users are for the most part not prepared to pay a lot, that's why they use Pentax, the brand with the most bang for the buck.

+1
Sometimes, I think this is the downfall of the brand.
How to make money when your customer base only wants to hold on to 3-4 generations old bodies and nit-pik at everything new that comes out?

[monochrome]

Mine does, it's labelled Imprezza WRX

My point exactly. There are 17 varietes of Impreza (if you count STi).

BTW, have you seen the 2013 BRZ? RWD, also badged as a Scion frm Toyota JV. It is REAR WHEEL DRIVE!

This is the world's only front-engine, rear-drive sports car powered by a boxer engine. The Subaru 2.0-liter four is an all-new engine with a different block from that used in the 2012 Impreza, and features Toyota-sourced direct injection. It gets a unique FA designation within the Subaru engine family (the closely related 2012 Impreza engine is known as the FB, while the 2011 Impreza is the EJ), and though Subaru engineers were tight-lipped about the engine's output, they didn't disagree with our guess of about 200 hp and 170 lb-ft. The engine drives the rear wheels through a choice of two Aisin six-speed transmissions

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1112_2013_subaru_brz_prototype_first_drive/#ixzz1xEGus6ST

[TER-OR]

Don't hijack threads with uber-distracting little sportscars. Subie's going after the RX-8 type market. I still see one of the old SVX on the road here in the Chicago area during the summer months.

I am following the K-30 with some interest. My wife used to do a lot of photography, but doesn't like the complications of the K-10 or K-5. I know, it's as easy as you want it to be, but still....

[monochrome]

Oops. My bad. This thread had somehow deviated into a discussion of the K-01 anyway. Thanks for reminding me to stay on topic.

If the K-01 is any guide to what to expect, IMHO the K30 will in some respects be more complex that a K5 - that is, it is somewhat more menu and less button driven; a few buttons appear to be Mode-dependent ([LV / Delete]); and perhaps the battery will have less capacity (though I've never drained a battery in one session in either camera).

I frankly prefer more single-purpose controls, placed logically, and fewer menu choices, even though that looks more complex. Menu obligations on my K-01 makes me crazy. YMMV.

Those are my thoughts. Having a K-01, I'm saving my pennies for something else.

[RonHendriks1966]

I really don't think the K-01 was intended for shooters who would even consider the limitations of 12-bit RAW files. It is a sophisticated snapshot camera that can do some very high quality shots in the right hands. It isn't, wasn't intended to be and shouldn't be mistaken for a mid-level or high-level dSLR.

I second on this. I will also use my K-01 for family and holiday and set it to jpg and black and white and make happy-snappy pictures. I don't think that people who buy K-01 as their main camera have LightRoom as their software for images. Maybe some picasa developing, but nothing fancy.

[isaacc7]

In an ideal world, having 14 bit raw files would give you more information and thus more wiggle room for PP. in the real world, the information in those last 2 bits is competing against the noise in the system. If you are going to have worthwhile 14 bit output, you have to gave a system with a much better signal to noise ratio. The analog part, and it's conversion to digital is the problem here. Lots of things can put more noise into the sytem before it is converted to digital, even heat causes problems. To get clean 14 bit files requires quite a bit more engineering. That is doable, but it costs more money.

This is a big reason why the visable difference between 12 and 14 bit raw files is so slight. The extra bits don't help if there isn't useable information in it or if the information is swamped by noise. This is why even if a sensor is cabable of recording in 12 bits, it may make sense to limit the output to 12 bits. Smaller files, faster processing, same image quality given the state of the imaging system. I can even imagine a situation where eliminating the last 2 bits could improve the image quality if there is too much noise in them.

[Mr. A.S.]

Thanks isaacc7.
I very much hope that, with respect to the camera K-30 your words heard and addressed by specialists Pentax. I bought it as a replacement for K20D.

[isaacc7]

Thanks isaacc7.
I very much hope that, with respect to the camera K-30 your words heard and addressed by specialists Pentax. I bought it as a replacement for K20D.

Oh I'm sure they've thought about it a lot. It's all a matter of trade offs. Clearly, the k-30 is meant to sell at a certain price point. Going from 14 to 12 bits is, even in an ideal situation, a marginal difference in image quality. In the end, I think we'll find that it is more or less a "costless" way of economizing so that money can be spent on other things like the focussing system.

[Pentaxor]

In an ideal world, having 14 bit raw files would give you more information and thus more wiggle room for PP. in the real world, the information in those last 2 bits is competing against the noise in the system. If you are going to have worthwhile 14 bit output, you have to gave a system with a much better signal to noise ratio. The analog part, and it's conversion to digital is the problem here. Lots of things can put more noise into the sytem before it is converted to digital, even heat causes problems. To get clean 14 bit files requires quite a bit more engineering. That is doable, but it costs more money.

This is a big reason why the visable difference between 12 and 14 bit raw files is so slight. The extra bits don't help if there isn't useable information in it or if the information is swamped by noise. This is why even if a sensor is cabable of recording in 12 bits, it may make sense to limit the output to 12 bits. Smaller files, faster processing, same image quality given the state of the imaging system. I can even imagine a situation where eliminating the last 2 bits could improve the image quality if there is too much noise in them.

that's right. I don't think that it would be advantageous right now to implement the same 14 bit capability on the same A/D conversion hardware on the K30. so they might as well make it 12bit which is not that far from the K-5 output. 14bit or 16bit output would only make a difference if the A/D converters are really good. the converter should also be considered when thinking about getting something higher than a 12bit. otherwise, the difference won't be that as far off.

[isaacc7]

that's right. I don't think that it would be advantageous right now to implement the same 14 bit capability on the same A/D conversion hardware on the K30. so they might as well make it 12bit which is not that far from the K-5 output. 14bit or 16bit output would only make a difference if the A/D converters are really good. the converter should also be considered when thinking about getting something higher than a 12bit. otherwise, the difference won't be that as far off.

And it isn't just the A/D convertor, it's the entire system. Power supplies, heat, RF, all can add noise to the system. It's a complicated thing, pursuing the cleanest possible signal requires looking at the entire camera and all of its systems.

[Pentaxor]

And it isn't just the A/D convertor, it's the entire system. Power supplies, heat, RF, all can add noise to the system. It's a complicated thing, pursuing the cleanest possible signal requires looking at the entire camera and all of its systems.

of course. that is why it's not feasible right now for the current system to implement the 14bit. it is possible, but it would probably cost 2k which I think Pentax users wouldn't be so happy about. the 12bit versus 14bit discussion is not really something that is worth considering right now, but rather the price to performance ratio is. $750 would certainly make the camera a top seller.

[rawr]

It couldn't have been that expensive to at least let the camera shoot 5 fps for 6 or 7 RAW, could it?

Just wait for the first K-30 firmware update.

If history is any guide, things will probably improve some. Remember the K-5's RAW burst shooting buffer jumped significantly after the first firmware update (v1.01) from 8 to 20 frames. And now even Canon has released a firmware update for the 7D that also magically boosts the RAW shooting buffer from 15 to 26 shots.

Same sort of improvement might happen to the K-30 as a result of additional software tuning.