[Kenn100D]

I asked FF. Go MF. He has 2 Customers ordered 645D

[Kenn100D]

I know i tought so too. I tought K-7 will go down he said the price is still the same. Maybe the K-5 is APS-H PRO Camera.

[falconeye]

K-5 cost 2K+ or - Euros.

The above information is wrong.
Please don't ask me for the correct launch price though
Or make more speculations ... I won't correct those

[Aristophanes]

No way an APS-C can be sold for that price unless there is a really special feature. Unless the K-5 is not an APS-C camera...

It might be an announcement, not a release; a proof of concept, either FF or sans mirror.

[Winder]

Below is another misled "non engineer" let me explain again ...


Ad 1. They are. Pentax 645D should beat any non MF camera in low light. I already guesstimated (and posted) figures from available data.

Ad 2. Size is the most important factor for a given technology. No pixel size over 2µm currently is in conflict with existing technology. All dSLRs are over 4µm.

Ad 3. You talk about pixel noise, not image noise. Pixel noise is irrelevant. E.g., what is pixel noise for a film image? The link which ClassA provided for your convenience was there for a reason

Pentax 645D is not going to beat a Nikon D3s for low-light performance. Please show me a real world example.

Show me two sensors that are a different size, but use identical technology to demonstrate the difference that size plays.

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

As a misled non-engineer the only math I care about involves $, and the only differences I care about are the ones that can be seen and demonstrated.

What two cameras with different size sensors employ the exact same sensor architecture, pixel pitch, micro-lens technology, Color and AA filter so that we can actually compare images from and demonstrate the size advantage?

I have no interest in number crunching or theory, only real world examples of cameras that can demonstrate the size advantage when everything thing else is equal.

The D3s and D3x are the same size and of the same generation. They use the same image processor, yet they obviously have very different high-ISO performance.

[Kenn100D]

The above information is wrong.
Please don't ask me for the correct launch price though
Or make more speculations ... I won't correct those

Maybe so. we'll a least K-R and K-5 is True enough. Pricing we can wait after Photokina. Unless your part of NDA which a FF Camera is in your hands that even retailers don't know about.

[Kenn100D]

Pentax 645D is not going to beat a Nikon D3s for low-light performance. Please show me a real world example.

Show me two sensors that are a different size, but use identical technology to demonstrate the difference that size plays.

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

As a misled non-engineer the only math I care about involves $, and the only differences I care about are the ones that can be seen and demonstrated.

What two cameras with different size sensors employ the exact same sensor architecture, pixel pitch, micro-lens technology, Color and AA filter so that we can actually compare images from and demonstrate the size advantage?

I have no interest in number crunching or theory, only real world examples of cameras that can demonstrate the size advantage when everything thing else is equal.

The D3s and D3x are the same size and of the same generation. They use the same image processor, yet they obviously have very different high-ISO performance.

Maybe You are right. But much better if you try 645D in your hands and compare it with 3DS. Then tells us which is better.

@Falconeye
Just a sideline question? Do you have an info that CANON was really into buying Pentax from Hoya? I heard they made an aggresive offer to buy out Pentax outright just to retain the 20% loss share from Pentax.

[Angevinn]

Look what Pentax really needs more than FF is better accessories.
Today I was playing with a Canon 580EXII flash, which here in Australia is at a similar price point to the Pentax AF540GZ and wow what a difference.
The AF540GZ feels like flimsy plastic whereas the 580EXII feels like a professional unit well worth the money, has environmental seals, feels solid, tight and well worth its money.
The 540GZ looks pathetic by comparison.

Where does the money come from to fund R&D into accessories? Selling two of the most inexpensive cameras on the market isn't going to add much to your R&D budget.

Nikon and Canon have cash machines in their FullFrame cameras, both companies make good profits off of the cameras. That makes investors happy but also funds R&D, marketing, etc. R&D develops better autofocus, flash systems, you name it.

I don't understand the rancor against FullFrame. If certain forum members aren't interested in it then they don't have to buy it. Hoya/Pentax needs a premium system to help bring in more profits. The 645D was a start, but it's still the cheapest Medium Format Camera out. Even at $11,000.

The Pentax product line up won't change that drastically after Photokina. From what I've read:

K-X- $500

K-R (EVIL) - Under $1,000 (K-R with lens<$750?) A lot of competition from Sony, Samsung, Olympus & Panasonic. Price wars will keep it in the ballpark of the other manufacturers.

K-7 - Fills mid-range spot of K200D, $800.00

K-5 - Soon to be Pentax DSLR flagship, priced between $1300-$1400 (my guess).

Next step up with Pentax is the 645D at $11,000.

No middle ground between the APS-C line up (all about $1,000) and Medium Format in the $10,000 range. Pentax really needs a decent FullFrame in the middle somewhere. I bet it would have a crop mode for DA lenses. A tele-converter would give APS-C DA lenses FullFrame sensor coverage. No one loses out.

Canon and Nikon both produce APS-C and FullFrame cameras. The 645D Medium Format shares a lot of DNA with the K-7, tweaking the K-7 (or upcoming K-5) to work with a FullFrame sensor won't break the bank. Hoya/Pentax can support all three systems with well thought out product development shared among three platforms.

Whatever products Hoya/Pentax bring out they need to advertise. Where's the sense in having a great product if no one knows about it? Good advertising pays for itself with increased sales. Advertising isn't cheap, I hope Hoya keeps investing in Pentax. It will pay off.

[Aristophanes]

Pentax 645D is not going to beat a Nikon D3s for low-light performance. Please show me a real world example.

Show me two sensors that are a different size, but use identical technology to demonstrate the difference that size plays.

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

As a misled non-engineer the only math I care about involves $, and the only differences I care about are the ones that can be seen and demonstrated.

What two cameras with different size sensors employ the exact same sensor architecture, pixel pitch, micro-lens technology, Color and AA filter so that we can actually compare images from and demonstrate the size advantage?

I have no interest in number crunching or theory, only real world examples of cameras that can demonstrate the size advantage when everything thing else is equal.

The D3s and D3x are the same size and of the same generation. They use the same image processor, yet they obviously have very different high-ISO performance.

This might help you understand:

"We see that the full-frame sensors (blue dots) have a clear advantage over the APS-C sensors (green dots). This is because full-frame sensors are collecting twice as much light as APS sensors. It is easy to see that the average difference of SNR is about 3dB (a one-stop gain),4 which is exactly what is expected when doubling the amount of light.
We also see a greater improvement over time for full-frame sensors than for APS-Cs. In five years, full-frame sensors have gained 5dB, which is a gain of nearly two f-stops! For the same period (roughly from 2003 "

From:

DxOMark - SNR and image quality evolution

[nanok]

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

that is correct, pixel noise on it's own is irrelevant. the image being the sum of it's parts does not in any way invalidate that. very blunt example: engine (maximum) power is irrelevant on it's own. but engine provides the power to the drivetrain, and that power is important. both statements are true. do you catch my drift? a very simple wake up call would be: 1.5 times the power (impressive difference), but 2x the weight overall, the lower power clearly looks better already (better power to weight ratio), but i have compared cars with the same stated max power output, _and_ the same weight, and i realized power means nothing on it's own. but i digress

As a misled non-engineer the only math I care about involves $, and the only differences I care about are the ones that can be seen and demonstrated.

i agree, that is exactly why pixel noise is irrelevant on it's own. hint: print, that is real world, looking at pixel noise, or pictures at 1/1 on your screen (aka pixel peeping) _is_ _irrelevant_. shoot, print, and than tell what you think about pixel noise.

[Winder]

This might help you understand:

"We see that the full-frame sensors (blue dots) have a clear advantage over the APS-C sensors (green dots). This is because full-frame sensors are collecting twice as much light as APS sensors. It is easy to see that the average difference of SNR is about 3dB (a one-stop gain),4 which is exactly what is expected when doubling the amount of light.
We also see a greater improvement over time for full-frame sensors than for APS-Cs. In five years, full-frame sensors have gained 5dB, which is a gain of nearly two f-stops! For the same period (roughly from 2003 "

From:

DxOMark - SNR and image quality evolution

Show me which "dots" have the same pixel density and pitch. The advantage is not in the size of the sensor, but in the size of the photosites. The Nikon sensor with the greatest gain is the 12MP with the largest photosites.

Yes, average advances in FF have out paced advances in APS-C (ON AVERAGE). Nikon is leading the way in performance, but they also have the lowest density of any other FF on the market. Almost all APS-C sensor have more MP than the D700/D3 on 1/2 the surface area. The reason that Nikon is moving ahead on this chart is that Nikon is not pushing the MPs like Canon.
"DxOMark Measurements show that advances in RAW conversion technology have compensated for the increase in SNR brought about by the proliferation of smaller, less light-sensitive pixels in DSLRs, with the result that today’s high-resolution cameras produce higher-quality images overall than low-resolution cameras when viewed or printed under the same conditions."

The entire point of the article is in the conclusion. Something about "smaller less light-sensitive pixels" are being compensated for by modern RAW converters.

If you're right just post some real world examples of images from cameras that have the same pixel density, & the same technology level, but different sized sensors. I'm not interested in averages which are skewed by different manufactures who are using different approaches to sensor development and IQ. Show some specific examples.

[Winder]

that is correct, pixel noise on it's own is irrelevant. the image being the sum of it's parts does not in any way invalidate that. very blunt example: engine (maximum) power is irrelevant on it's own. but engine provides the power to the drivetrain, and that power is important. both statements are true. do you catch my drift? a very simple wake up call would be: 1.5 times the power (impressive difference), but 2x the weight overall, the lower power clearly looks better already (better power to weight ratio), but i have compared cars with the same stated max power output, _and_ the same weight, and i realized power means nothing on it's own. but i digress

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.

agree, that is exactly why pixel noise is irrelevant on it's own. hint: print, that is real world, looking at pixel noise, or pictures at 1/1 on your screen (aka pixel peeping) _is_ _irrelevant_. shoot, print, and than tell what you think about pixel noise.

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.

[zackspeed]

This sounds way off.

No panic,thats not the price.
Both Cameras have a reasonable price.
not 2000€
pentax is not stupid

best regards

[Kunzite]

I'm not panicked at all

[zackspeed]

i know