[rparmar]

True, but why should we have to rely on 3rd party manufacturers to deliver a quality product?

Maybe because Pentax has a fraction of the market penetration and hence a fraction of the ability to get new products out. IMO they would do well to develop the best possible third-party connections to fill in gaps in their system.

It rivals the price of a K-x body.

The Metz 58 is cheaper than the Nikon flashes everyone loves and does more than the Pentax equivalent. If you want dead cheap just get an old thyrister and have at it. But I didn't think this thread was about the cheapest alternatives possible, only those that exist. The Metz exists. It works with Pentax. It does everything anyone could want.

The only downside might be its non-military spec build. I do hope Pentax bring on a weather-sealed version if there is a market for it.

Until then, this fixation with Pentax branded components is a bit wearying. After all, your tripod doesn't say "Pentax" but I doubt you worry about that.

[uccemebug]

Pentax is doing pretty good things with the 3 year old Sony sensor that is in the K-x. That sensor has been used by Sony and Nikon, but Pentax is getting the best results out of it.

So a second-generation product on the same platform. It makes sense to me and in fact could be a credible buyer's guide. Like software or cars, you want the refined model right?

"We put three years of refinement into this chip" could even be a selling point (somewhere in the fine print where the spec-obsessed look).

[zackspeed]

that´s it

[uccemebug]

I know a lot of people want to argue the point, but all I care about is actual proof. No theory...... no computer models..... no number crunching or quantum physics..... produce actual images to prove the point.

Winder, you keep saying "show me" but you're supplanting a mathematical model with an elaborate physical comparison. And yet those sensor designs come from .. the math.

I'm also a show-me person but the results in the links we've been kindly provided do an excellent job.

[nanok]

I understand what you are saying and I agree with part of. An engines output is determined by the combined efficiency of each cylinder (simplified). If one cylinder is miss-firing it effects total output and can not be compensated for. All of that is independent of weight.

that was not what i meant, malfunctioning engines were not in the equation. it has more to do with torque/power delivery curves (aka: there's a long way to the max power, and it's that way that matters more than the actual max power (whch, on it's own, doesn't actually matter at all). and there's more. but that's besides the point.

The cleaner the signal is to start with the better. Nikon is producing very good files that give you a lot of working room and flexibility. I agree that the final print is what matters, but getting there with the least amount of time and work is pretty important.

My comment about real world results is to the point of sensor size and its impact on image quality. The argument is that all things being equal the larger sensor will produce a better image, but NOBODY can produce a real world image to prove this.

I know a lot of people want to argue the point, but all I care about is actual proof. No theory...... no computer models..... no number crunching or quantum physics..... produce actual images to prove the point.

post processing was not what i had in mind at all. the point is that people tend to look at per-pixel noise, and forget that you're not actually printing pixels on the same size paper (hint: the k20d has better high iso noise behavior than the k100d, when it ocmes to printing actual images on actual paper at an actual given size, despite the fact it might look worse per-pixel). i was answering your statement about per-pixel noise specifically. all else being equal, it's actually photosensitive surface that matters, not size of photosites or any other such stuff (though form a certain point on it can get complicated ). all else is rarely if ever equal, but larger size usually mean better snr. mf sensors, though, don't do well at high iso (i suspect they are too big for their own good, and there might be heat disipation problems and so on, for a critical point on, but i don't know exactly to be honest).

[Winder]

Winder, you keep saying "show me" but you're supplanting a mathematical model with an elaborate physical comparison. And yet those sensor designs come from .. the math.

I'm also a show-me person but the results in the links we've been kindly provided do an excellent job.

The article show the progression of sensors from Nikon and Canon with varying pixel density and age. Since I am asking for comparisons of sensors with the same pixel density, but different size sensor please explain how that is relevant.

Compare the GH1 and the 7D. Near identical pixel density and very similar technology. The GH1 is within 1/3 of a stop (according to DxO) of the 7D. IF size is as important a factor as people want to claim..... explain that.

The GH1 out performs the Pentax K-7 even though the GH1 is half the size of the K-7. Both sensors were released around the same time, both designed for HD video. GH1 has better high-ISO and better DR. BUT it is 1/2 the size.

[nanok]

winder, don't get me wrong: i think this ff craze is over-rated as well, and as i said, all else is rarely equal. the idea is that better snr is always a good thing, and a bigger sensor will deliver better snr. if one is going to beneffit from that or not, that's a different storry (and it would be difficult i think to find examples you can view on your computer display, not heavily processed, that would actually show any difference, seeing how well aps-c sensors are doing these days (what i mean is: even at low iso, ff will be better in theory, the fact that it only becomes apparent at high iso is incidental). ff imho is about so much more than high iso performance (and still i don't think i want full frame yet, for myself ).

if you want to see a difference to prove the point, your best bet is to go the whole mile: compare an aps-c dslr to a p&s from the same "era", preferably a p&s which does raw too (so you can see samples without tha thorrid nr applied). you will see the difference instantly, regardless of pixel density. it's the size..

[Class A]

Noisy pixels don't have an impact on image quality? The image is the sum of it parts.

The use of the term "sum" is quite apt since the idea of summation and the resulting averaging quality explains why smaller pixels are not disadvantaged.

I'm sorry that I missed an "!' in the url of the link I posted (here is the correct link: Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise).
Here is a very brief summary:
Imagine you have a sensor B which has four times as many pixels as sensor A. The B pixels will have (roughly) only a quarter of the size. Let's assume this means they only have quarter of the full-well capacity. Is this a problem? No, since each of B pixels only gets a fourth of the light that A pixels get. -> No difference in dynamic range.

So if each B pixel only gets a fourth of the light, surely it must be more noisy? Yes, it is, but take the average over four B pixels (covering the same area as one A pixel) and the noise increase is cancelled out. Either downscaling, your printer, or your eye will perform the averaging.

If you look at DxOMark comparisons, please always select the "print" tab that is available on most charts. Only then you are comparing overall image quality. If you use the "screen" tab, you are comparing pixels which is neither fair nor useful (remember that four B pixels form the equivalent of one A pixel, so you shouldn't compare an single A pixel to a single B pixel). Maybe some of your camera-specific questions will be answered by using the "print" tabs (e.g., the per pixel difference between the D3s and the D3X is big, but in terms of the resulting image noise they are very close. Note that when the merits of high pixel-pitch are discussed one assumes "everything else being equal" which is very rarely the case. For the Sony thrashers: note that the "oh so terrible A900 noise" is pretty close to that of the D3X).

I wrote this post to provide a correction to the incomplete link I previously posted and in order to attempt to settle the off-topic "pixel pitch" discussion. I think we should respect Falk's request to post further "pixel pitch" related questions elsewhere.

[uccemebug]

The article show the progression of sensors from Nikon and Canon with varying pixel density and age. Since I am asking for comparisons of sensors with the same pixel density, but different size sensor please explain how that is relevant.

But you've outlined a comparison that deploys the same configuration right down to the microlens. Barring a manufacturer (or possibly two) building exactly that (and deploying the identical A/D converter, etc) it's infeasible.

If you're really not interested in the measurements for some reason, why not ask the motivation of some of the people who've spent thousands of dollars on moving to another vendor's "full frame" platform about the difference in their results. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding someone who's willing to show you.

I might dig around for some links for you but I've just had to cleanse an open wound on my arm and change the dressing. These seem to be outpatient things here in Japan. 8^/

[youky63]

I invite more contributions about what Pentax should communicate and do in the next 2 years though.

Right, sorry for the digressions.

So, in my mind (and seems you have inside infos confirming the fact), FF will and can NOT be released this year. It would have make sense to make a FF K7, but they didn't. Even if my heart say "do it now Pentax!", my head conclude they missed the train and must catch another one.

The mirrorless camera train

I am living in Japan, and from the Japanese point of view, mirrorless camera is THE must have for camera company in 2010. I don't know if it will continue for many years, but right now Pana, Oly and Sony sell their EVIL things like hot cakes! They have the most crowded shelves in giants camera shops and attract many photographers (from my observation, mainly young for Pany and Sony, and mainly old for Oly. Difference of design I guess).

Annoncements

So, what Pentax/Hoya must announce in the next 2 years... For me, mirrorless camera is the absolute priority () and must (will?) be done this september. They must make it very compact, but keep the "Pentax style" (SR, WR). If I was Pentax chief designer project, I would have made like a NEX camera, with a new very short mount but wide enough for a potential FF sensor (who knows what will happen in 5 or 10 years?). Also, I would put IS in the lenses, to reduce the size, weight and price of the camera, but will put a build in flash (pop up or not? Good question... Probably not for WR, but maybe no choice because of the size of the lenses). Or, option number 2, a m4/3 system. Maybe not so good for IQ, but with a so big potential for lenses sales that it is probably very appealing!

At the same time, as expected, I would also announce a new flagship camera (will be the K5) with one of Sony's sensors. But I would also keep all the actual models! Because 2 cameras are really and definitely not enough to attract people.

The minority dilemma

Look at the other brands (from official french websites):
-Olympus: 9 cameras (E-3, E-30, E-420, E-450, E520, E-560, E-PL1, E-P1, E-P2)
-Panasonic: 5 cameras (Lumix G2, DMC-G1, DMC-G10, DMC-GH1, DMC-GF1) + many many good compact/bridge cameras (world leader)
-Sony: 9 cameras, and soon many more (a290, a330, a450, a500, a550, a850, a900, NEX-3, NEX-5)
-Canon: 9 cameras (european names: 1000D, 450D, 500D, 550D, 50D, 7D, 5DMkII, 1DMkiV, 1DsMkIII)
-Nikon: 10 cameras (!!!) (D60, D3000, D5000, D90, D300, D300s, D700, D3, D3s, D3x)

Pentax is offering good products, but the choice is so small compared to other companies that people have more chance to find what they "exactly" want in other brands. And one more time, when you buy the bigger one (k7, equivalent of middle class in other brands), then you feel "trapped" because you cannot upgrade to any better machine. I do with my K20D.

Glasses

Since I expect a brand new body with a new mount, of course I expect them to release a semi-dozen of new lenses during the next year. People will want choice from Pentax, more than from Sony (P&S photographers, they just need a zoom to be happy). Which means at least 2 zooms, and a few primes.
Also I would announce this year a good wide angle for 645D camera. And make clear it will be released world wide soon (so people can start to save money).

And then?

With a new system, they must push in this way for a while, at least 2 years. That means I would not introduce a FF camera before 2 years, probably when Nikon will announce the D900. Instead, I would announce middle of next year a new 645D body, expend the model for worldwide distribution, and keep the 2nd one specifically for Japan. Higher or lower spec? I don't know. Maybe lower, to attract new amateurs. Or higher, if their is a need from professionals for such product.

[stanleyk]

"(from my observation, mainly young for Pany and Sony, and mainly old for Oly. Difference of design I guess)."

I think you are correct about this. I'm 49 and went for the Olympus. I really like the design much better than the Panasonic. I tried it and the Panasonic but really preferred the look of the Olympus. The Olympus also had in body image stablization which is good for using my old KA and M lenses. That said I use Panasonic lenses on it. I think they are a bit better than the Olympus offerings, but also a lot more expensive. The 20mm F1.7 and 45mm F2.8 are really great lenses. I'm about to get the 7-14.

[Mohawk]

I can't really comment on the UI as I didn't spend enough time with it. But in terms of build quality the 580EXII is miles ahead of the Pentax equivalent. By comparison the 540 feels extremely fragile.

...........

True, but why should we have to rely on 3rd party manufacturers to deliver a quality product?

I really don't see what you mean about 'miles ahead'. Like I said I've used both, and both are plastic. One has environmental seals and the other doesn't. If a flash with a mag-alloy body comes out, then that would be something. In any case the proof is in the pudding and the Pentax tends to produce a better (less harsh, but slightly cooler) light.

The Metz has problems in a wireless setup with Pentax, particularly with misfires exacerbated the stupid placement of the IR receiver. I wouldn't rely on it at all.

[Winder]

But you've outlined a comparison that deploys the same configuration right down to the microlens. Barring a manufacturer (or possibly two) building exactly that (and deploying the identical A/D converter, etc) it's infeasible.

If you're really not interested in the measurements for some reason, why not ask the motivation of some of the people who've spent thousands of dollars on moving to another vendor's "full frame" platform about the difference in their results. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding someone who's willing to show you.

I might dig around for some links for you but I've just had to cleanse an open wound on my arm and change the dressing. These seem to be outpatient things here in Japan. 8^/

OK.... forget micro lenses. Show me two sensor of similar pixel density, and of the same generation but that are a different size and let's look at how they actually compare in the real world.

I have a Canon 5D. Just sold my Olympus E-3 and picked up a K-7 to play with until after I see what is introduced next month and what direction everyone is going. I'm not arguing that FF has no advantages. People have stated that size is the biggest factor in sensor performance at high-ISO, and I disagree.

There are real world examples of smaller sensors of the same technology level out performing larger sensors, or performing at comparable levels.

[youky63]

People have stated that size is the biggest factor in sensor performance at high-ISO, and I disagree.

There are real world examples of smaller sensors of the same technology level out performing larger sensors, or performing at comparable levels.

OK, I (and my bank account) want to believe you. So, now, since there is real world examples, please, show us.

[Kunzite]

I invite more contributions about what Pentax should communicate and do in the next 2 years though.

That's easy. Instead of a roadmap or even a promise to launch "FF" somewhere in the future, they should show us what can be done with their cameras.
Galleries all over the world, and (hopefully) at this year's Photokina. They should insert some 645D images here and there, just to show the difference

youky63, Pentax can launch so many cameras at once. What they will show us soon, it makes perfect sense to launch such products before "FF". Right now, they must act on the APS-C range: they can't have the K-x as their main (=sales) camera for much longer, and a new top of the range model is badly required.

About the 645D not selling all over the world: it's your fault. Really; it's you, Japanese people, who keep buying everyone Pentax can make; so there's none left for us