[Gimbal]

I see, personally I think it would have been enough to have the thread locked, with a comment explaining why. Anyhow, thanks for the explanation.

[sajah]

Yeah I've spent some time looking for / tracing that thread. But even Google doesn't have it cached Agree that a lock should be fine but doesn't really matter. I'm so glad he's gone!! And thanks for the explanation!

[filorp]

you know guys this thrad reveald something.... we are relly strange society (pentaxians) we want something dual and contradictory: something what will be abe to compete with big 2 (fast sport AF, high iso capability) and something we don't know... what is absolutely different, unique. like leica and canon at the same body...

[sjwaldron]

you know guys this thrad reveald something.... we are relly strange society (pentaxians) we want something dual and contradictory: something what will be abe to compete with big 2 (fast sport AF, high iso capability) and something we don't know... what is absolutely different, unique. like leica and canon at the same body...

I don't know, I think it just might be two separate groups inside here that want two different things. I'm of the unique high quality output group (ala. 645D). If someone wants a super fast machine gun camera, well there are two systems already out there for them......

[fikkser]

I don't know, I think it just might be two separate groups inside here that want two different things. I'm of the unique high quality output group (ala. 645D). If someone wants a super fast machine gun camera, well there are two systems already out there for them......

But why make a slow camera if it could be a fast one? What does a nature photographer lose from using a fast camera? Saying Pentax is for img quality is just a bad excuse. If they could they would have made a fast AF machine gun k-7 with 7d performance.

It's like apple, they make great computers but the graphics cards always lag behind, like Pentax AF (but atleast apple does it intentionally). Pentax won't attract the young tech generation by making slow cameras with good iq, like apple won't attract gamers or anyone comparing specs, which is a big group of customers, probably the majority of the people below like 35.

In a Swedish Pentax forum I read the average age scares me. Sometimes i click some random poster and thinks "Wow, do this grandpa really know how to use computers?". Pentax will have to go more against canon and nikon cameras to attract the new generation IMO.

[sjwaldron]

But why make a slow camera if it could be a fast one? What does a nature photographer lose from using a fast camera? Saying Pentax is for img quality is just a bad excuse. If they could they would have made a fast AF machine gun k-7 with 7d performance.

Well, I personally won't likely buy a high pixel count APS-C machine gun if that's what Pentax will be releasing next. I'd rather get a second K-7 on discount. If the next camera is actually a 35mm full frame, I'd be interested in that for various reasons.

I obviously assume that the next new camera out of Pentax will be the K-7 Super, which will probably be a general improvement over the existing K-7. I also assume it will be APS-C. Will it be 7fps+? Who knows... If it is, it won't be cheaper than $1300 most likely. Will Pentax come out with something above the K-7 Super? I have a feeling they might.

I at least think they will add a 3rd camera to the 35mm lineup. Will it be APS-C or FF? That's the question. If APS-C, it could be just below the K-7 or just above.

A few possibilities:
A - Release of the K-7 Super (fps increase variable)
A - Release of the K-8 35mm Full-Frame
A - K-x unchanged
or
B - Release of the K-5 middle ground APS-C
B - Release of the K-7 Super boring update
B - K-x unchanged
or
C - Release of the K-7 Super
C - Release of nothing else, eventually get 645D to the USA.
C- K-x unchanged
or
D - Release of the K-7 Super machine gun (technically K-8 APS-C)
D - Release of the K-5 middle round APS-C (technically cheap K-7 or expensive K-x)
D - K-x unchanged
or
E - Release of the K-7 Super boring update
E - Release of the K-5 middle ground
E - K-x unchanged

The list could go on and on. I think B is probably most likely, but I'd rather have A... and I think there are some signs that have pointed to FF lately. All that being said, I don't think we can expect their first FF to be a machine gun seeing as they have not even had and APS-C one yet. Unless they find a fast FF sensor and just happen to have a new faster Prime processor in hand.

At least from what I've learned so far, speed tends to be traded for quality to hit a certain price point, among other technical issues. This is true for things besides cameras (eg. IPS vs TN LCD display panels). Having both probably means much more expense. I'd like to have ice cream and cake today, but if that means spending $30 on ice-cream cake, or spending $3.50 on a quart of ice cream... there is a good chance I'd just rather opt for the ice cream.

Also, the 645D for example uses a CCD, which overall is better for some types of things I'm interested in (I'd like to do more astrophotography for example). If Pentax were to use a Kodak sensor for the mystical 35mm full-frame, chances are it would not have an extreme framerate. If Pentax were to use Samsung, well we know what happened when they made the K20D sensor faster for the K-7 (don't get me wrong, I love my K-7...never had a K20D).

Sure, I'd like a crazy fast high quality 35mm full-frame camera, but there are some aspects I'd like more than others in say a $1500-2200 price point.

It's like apple, they make great computers but the graphics cards always lag behind, like Pentax AF (but at least apple does it intentionally).

Apple could put whatever they want into their machines. There is nothing stopping them from putting the most current graphics cards in their machines. Apple likes solid profit margins and is pretty keen on giving their fans just enough to please them (what they do give tends to be "special" and "magical" enough, which makes up for any shortcomings like no multitasking, removable battery, or SD card slot ). Keep in mind that they make decisions... having a removable battery and additional card slots would change the size of their devices. Apple wants sleek, solid, stark, ... some trade offs are necessary otherwise their "magical" design would have ended up looking and sized like a PC tablet.

Look at the K-7:
WR
Smaller and faster than the K10D and K20D
Sleek, Solid, Metal case
...could they have made the K-7 a machine gun as it is? Probably not.
1. faster processors tend to use more power, produce more heat, will be bigger until smaller fabrication processes are developed (which take time).
2. Speed will need to increase in all aspects of the camera, which most likely would have required more space.

So I'm guessing they thought... Let's take this K20D tech and merge it with this 645D tech to make something small, yet powerful enough at such-and-such a price point. Now they are probably thinking, let's take more 645D tech and merge that with what we learned from the K-7 and add all of this new stuff we want... to get ....

Pentax won't attract the young tech generation by making slow cameras with good iq, like apple won't attract gamers or anyone comparing specs, which is a big group of customers, probably the majority of the people below like 35.

I'm getting old, but I'm still under 30! I've never actually owned an Apple product, but I can at least admire them for their solid metal laptops.

In a Swedish Pentax forum I read the average age scares me. Sometimes i click some random poster and thinks "Wow, do this grandpa really know how to use computers?". Pentax will have to go more against canon and nikon cameras to attract the new generation IMO.

I can agree with your points. They are valid. I'm just thinking about what is most important to my personally and what I think differentiates Pentax in useful ways to me as a photographer. I'd just rather have some features over others. I also don't want to see Pentax follow in Canon/Nikon's footsteps for the sake of it... If I wanted such and such that the other companies already have, I'd just get that instead. If someone wants an APS-C machine gun... all they need to do is buy a 7D, right? Same could be said about the D700 for FF. It's not too expensive at around $2300, right?

[fikkser]

I can agree with your points. They are valid. I'm just thinking about what is most important to my personally and what I think differentiates Pentax in useful ways to me as a photographer. I'd just rather have some features over others. I also don't want to see Pentax follow in Canon/Nikon's footsteps for the sake of it... If I wanted such and such that the other companies already have, I'd just get that instead. If someone wants an APS-C machine gun... all they need to do is buy a 7D, right? Same could be said about the D700 for FF. It's not too expensive at around $2300, right?

Sure, but I'm sure that Pentax will lose market share as their fans grows older. They will get in to a vicious cycle. The older people are keepers and won't get a new camera as often as younger, but maybe they'll buy more glass. Still they won't attract enough buyers by building cameras that attracts generally older people (and those wanting to be different like me).

I'm sure Canon and Nikon will be able to make a "perfect" camera long before Pentax and then it will be no reason for getting Pentax at all. If Pentax keep making cameras that aren't up to the competition with atleast AF and ISO performance. IMO you should be able to shoot anything with a camera, that's the perfect camera. My K-7 is close, but my friends 7D is closer in many aspects, but also lacking some features of the K-7. I wish the next camera to be a mix of the K-7 and 7D. Size and MP count from the k-7 and pretty much everything else from the 7D.

[sjwaldron]

I'm sure Canon and Nikon will be able to make a "perfect" camera long before Pentax and then it will be no reason for getting Pentax at all. If Pentax keep making cameras that aren't up to the competition with atleast AF and ISO performance. IMO you should be able to shoot anything with a camera, that's the perfect camera. My K-7 is close, but my friends 7D is closer in many aspects, but also lacking some features of the K-7. I wish the next camera to be a mix of the K-7 and 7D. Size and MP count from the k-7 and pretty much everything else from the 7D.

I think there is a good chance the K-7 update will be similar to what you are looking for. We will see in a few months. It will depend on how lucky Pentax is with getting the necessary 3rd party components though (higher fps sensor, faster processor, faster mirror box, etc). As I was saying, I think they might release something above the K-7, which is what I'd be interested in at this point.

[FullertonImages]

I think there is a good chance the K-7 update will be similar to what you are looking for. We will see in a few months. It will depend on how lucky Pentax is with getting the necessary 3rd party components though (higher fps sensor, faster processor, faster mirror box, etc). As I was saying, I think they might release something above the K-7, which is what I'd be interested in at this point.

Speaking of mirror box. I hope that whatever they do, and I do hope they increase FPS, that they manage to keep the shutter actuation close to as quiet as the k-7. That is honestly one of my favorite features of the k-7. I realize that at some point they will have to trade off sound for speed, but I hope it doesn't sound like a D3.

[Pål Jensen]

Does anyone actually need more than 5fps?

[knoxploration]

Does anyone actually need more than 5fps?

Personally, I'd want faster only if it could be achieved in live view mode while still retaining phase detection autofocus. At faster shutter speeds, blackout time becomes more of an issue, and a TTL view becomes increasingly less useful. Pentax hasn't publicly released a spec for the viewfinder blackout time on the K-7 that I'm aware of, but FWICR the shortest of any rivals -- even pro models -- are around 75ms, give or take a couple of ms. Even at only 5.2 frames per second, and at the fastest shutter speed, that means the viewfinder is dark for at least 39% of the time. In real-world use on a prosumer DSLR, it'd likely be dark for a significantly percentage of the time.

An increase in Live View mode also wouldn't require a corresponding increase in mirror cycle speed, since the mirror would be locked up, so it'd be easier to achieve. The issue is that getting phase detection AF in Live View mode without dropping the mirror would involve a compromise to redirect some light to the AF sensor. Realistically I think for most users an increase in framerate beyond 5.2fps isn't a must-have feature.

So to be honest, 5.2 fps is plenty for me and I'd rather Pentax focused on other things.

[FullertonImages]

Does anyone actually need more than 5fps?

It sounds cool...?

In all honesty, I think one of the biggest reason for Pentax to achieve higher fps, is that there are certain thing that Pentax will always be instantly discredited for in comparison to CaNikon, and fps is one of them. Whether or not it makes any sense, or make much of a difference, the bottom line is that there is a large group of people out there that will instantly discredit whatever comes out next because the 7d/D300s shoots more fps. I don't think Pentax should try to be just like C&N. They should stick to their trend of values, like size, durability, weathersealing, value, awesome IQ, but if they can happen to get some faster fps and AF in the mix do shut up the critics, then that would go a looooong way for higher sales, and pulling in new users.

[sjwaldron]

Speaking of mirror box. I hope that whatever they do, and I do hope they increase FPS, that they manage to keep the shutter actuation close to as quiet as the k-7. That is honestly one of my favorite features of the k-7.

Same here! The k-7 shutter (sound) is nice. The first time I handled a K-7 in a local camera shop I was shocked. It was actually one of the reasons I decided to upgrade from the *ist DS.

I'd like to think Pentax will try to stay with low noise shutters for their pro(sumer) models. Does anyone know what the 645D shutter sounds like? I'm curious now...

[philippe]

Does anyone actually need more than 5fps?

Yes and no!
Yes, because I would like to do some hand held bracketing, and then a faster machine would be good, particularly if the mirror is not returning during this 'action'.
No, because what would I do with all these (machine-gunned) pictures? Filling up my computers HD and then buy an other external HD to fill up again? And where to find the time to sort out all these pictures?
It is not the quantity but the quality that matters to me and in certain occasions bracketing might help.

But, of course, this is a personal opinion…

[noser]

Does anyone actually need more than 5fps?

More is better, for me.

Shooting live subjects with the manual focus 50mm f/1.2 is a challenge. One of the techniques I've learned to be very successful with is "bracketing for focus".

Some things, like kids, weddings, pets, and 'life' mean that with no (or slow) AF things just pass you by, without a keeper shot. At 3fps I'm OK, but the RAW buffer on the K20D isn't near deep enough; for the price of memory it should be a few GB deep.

At, say, 9fps, or 3x my current rate (or 10 fps, 2x 5fps), the number of keeper shots goes up. Auto-stack by time in Lightroom, and delete all the non-keepers.

Is ~5fps enough for me? Maybe, I've not shot an event at that rate. I just know that if I've missed a shot it's gone forever. That's money not in my pocket!