[aliquis]

One question, though, for those more technically knowledgeable than me. If Pentax hypothetically releases a few more camera bodies later this year, wouldn't they have already picked the sensors for these cameras or can that come later in the development stage?

I don't know how early information such as this is but I assume that Samsung have known about the development and their goals for some time and I assume they may share their ideas/products to potential costumers. If not if it's released in say 6 months or 3 or whatever then maybe it would take one year before a product actually used it ..

If they share these news early then it doesn't matters because other manufacturers would notice and could eventuallt make a camera with it once it's released. And in that case I doubt any new pentax camera for this year will use it.

But if they put this information out to the public just once it's more or less done then I assume they have told others earlier and that they want products using it out on the market as soon as possible. And hence bigger chance.

But september or whatever is already pretty close.

[octavmandru]

As it was said over and over again, the Pentax bottleneck is AF.
Can't use those 10 fps if they come out blurred.

This is pro level performance and one has to improve the whole system: new mirror mechanics, buffer capacity, processing capacity, battery, ergonomics, WB, ISO.
Everything.
Including the flash system.

Octav

[24X36NOW]

I wouldn't consider the desire for a FF DSLR a Napoleon Complex. I shot 35mm film for close to 30 years, the APS-C format never appealed to me (I use it because my K100d and K20D use a digital sensor of that size). I avoided it in the 1990's (Kodak Advantix, Nikon Pronea, etc.) and the multiplication factor of 1.5 for the use of legacy glass is a pain in the neck.

I have friends with FF DSLR's (they all love them, I'm impressed but patient for Pentax), there are a number of advantages: Higher ISO performance, increased Image Quality, Larger View Finder, full use of lenses, etc. A fast 50mm on a FF camera is really awesome, not so much on an APS-C camera. The magic isn't quite there.

I'm not in the market for a MF 645D, but I'm not going to criticize Pentaxians that are. It looks like a great camera. All the best to Pentax and the photographers that will invest in it. I look forward to seeing the beautiful images that people will take with the 645D.

Napoleon did what he could to crush the monarchies of Europe, then crowned himself a king (emperor & heavily ironic). To have a FF Napoleon complex would be something like preaching against APS-C cameras in favor of FF, but then when FF is released refusing to upgrade and instead staying with APS-C.

Different Strokes for Different Folks.
Don't be sour grapes...

Well put, and to which I'll add, I'd like a viewfinder that doesn't suck, like we had in film days! Even if image quality was a complete wash, I'd still want FF, just for the viewfinder.

[Clarkey]

Oly have proved that you can have a good viewfinder on a decidedly sub-full-frame sensor (E-3). I would also love to see one with a decent amount of shooting information......

And here is a novel concept - use two (or four) processors to take care of the pipe instead of one. Offer an S-raw option as well to aid processing times.

Together with the newly patented focusing mechanism with the magnet thingy's (thread about here somewhere), bring up the AF speed.

Now would I buy one?.....

[24X36NOW]

Oly have proved that you can have a good viewfinder on a decidedly sub-full-frame sensor (E-3).

The E-3 viewfinder is supposedly comparable to APS-C viewfinders, which while certainly indicative of a good effort (given the even smaller sensor), still leaves you, AFAIK, with a viewfinder that sucks.

I can't honestly see the need for 10fps, and can't picture myself wanting to comb through ten almost identical images looking for the "best" one with any frequency. It'd be interesting to poll likely candidates for such a "feature," say, sports photographers, and see how many actually use 10fps regularly when they have a camera capable of it, as opposed to generally using it at a lower frame rate.

I think that a very competent pro photographer can squeeze pro level performance out of a "non" professional level camera like K-7. These guys can out shoot us amateurs equipped with 645D, probably with P & S. Yes the gaps between pros and amateurs have certainly narrowed, but that is between high end amateurs and low end pros. But, there are few out there would "wow" you no matter what he is shooting with.

Specs get carried away in the mist of competitions amongst manufactures. They are to me just "theatrics." Spending too much energy (and money) is exactly where they want you.

[Clarkey]

The E-3 viewfinder is supposedly comparable to APS-C viewfinders, which while certainly indicative of a good effort (given the even smaller sensor), still leaves you, AFAIK, with a viewfinder that sucks.

Snip...
Good point, was just trying to make point that if Oly can magnify a 4/3 up to an APS-C, can someone else not create a FF magnification from a APS-C

[er1kksen]

Snip...
Good point, was just trying to make point that if Oly can magnify a 4/3 up to an APS-C, can someone else not create a FF magnification from a APS-C

Probably not really... 4/3 is MUCH closer to APS-C (most of the area difference has to do with aspect ratio) than APS-C is to FF.

[24X36NOW]

Snip...
Good point, was just trying to make point that if Oly can magnify a 4/3 up to an APS-C, can someone else not create a FF magnification from a APS-C

I think that the more engineering-savvy (Falc?) have already opined that doing so would be as expensive as making a FF dSLR, so little point in that, since price has always been the main barrier to upgrading from APS-C to FF to begin with (and for that matter, the main barrier to making FF dSLRs to begin with).

Probably not really... 4/3 is MUCH closer to APS-C (most of the area difference has to do with aspect ratio) than APS-C is to FF.

Good point, in addition to (and perhaps part of the reason for) the issue above.

[RMabo]

My experience is that the pentaprism viewfinder that Pentax uses in the K10D/K20D and K-7 offers a similar experience to the viewfinder in my Pentax MZ-5N 24x36 film, in terms of brightness, clarity magnification and size - however, the K-DSLR's offers more since they are 95% to 100% view and the MZ-5N is below that.

[jbinpg]

Doesn't hold a candle to the exceedingly bright LX viewfinder, though.

[Kunzite]

But which "FF" DSLR does?

[thibs]

But which "FF" DSLR does?

None Afaik. Simply none.

[elho_cid]

I thought the 10fps could be usable with mirror up when shooting macros. Sliding the camera in rail and shooting in this speed without the mirror flap could be great to create a focus stack.
No need of AF for that.

As it was said over and over again, the Pentax bottleneck is AF.
Can't use those 10 fps if they come out blurred.
...

[RMabo]

Even if it is theoretically possible to enlarge an APS-C image up to 24x36 viewfinder, it would require quite a big viewfinder housing and the APS-C body would - in my opinion - most probably look a bit, well odd. Compact body with giant viewfinder housing.
When the *ist D was introduced, Pentax had the best APS-C viewfinder and suceeded to make it quite compact, but there are indeed physical laws involved so even with Pentax expertise in making things small and even smaller, such a 24x36 viewfinder experience for APS-C image would still require quite a much larger viewfinder housing for the extra magnification optics involved.