This could be a rumor also, but if true would have a big impact on pentax purchases:

Photokina is the biggest photography equipment show in the world and it takes place every two years in Cologne, Germany. The dates for 2010 are September 21-26.

Here is an updated list of what Nikon is expected to release for Photokina this year:

* Nikon D90 replacement (probably called D95, low chance of being called D8000):
o Aluminium or magnesium-alloy body
o 16MP sensor
o 1080 HD video
o Somewhere between 6-8 fps
o Improved ISO (don’t know what exactly the improvement is – higher ISO, or just better ISO at the same D90 level)
o 39 AF points
o Price: $1199 for body only
o Announcement: on/around September 15th, 2010

* Nikon D3100:
o Continuous AF in video mode/live view
o New AF points configuration which should cover a very large portion of the viewfinder. Total of 11 or 12 AF points.
o 14 MP CMOS sensor
o HD video: 1080p/24 and 720p 30/24!
o AVCHD video codec
o In camera video editing capabilities
o 3 fps
o Will be sold in a kit with a 18-55mm lens
o No swivel display
o Announcement: August 19th, 2010 (and Amazon is taking pre-orders now)

The name as far as what Nikon has leaked is Nikon D7000 as D90 replacement. That is the leaked name, though not official

[Steelski]

Amen to that!

Why,????
No camera that includes the now infamos Sony 12 MP Cmos chip (read D300, D300s, D90, D5000, A500, A700, K-x, Rico and Lieca cameras) can produce a Low Iso image as good as the inferior Samsung sensors in the K-7 and K20D. Its strange that All Nikon forums confirm this also. "Why does my D200 image look nicer in some way compared to the D300 i just upgraded to"

you must understand that picking on one sensor is useless.
As long as its a great sensor, I don't care who its from!

[thibs]

Yeah before K20 arrived, people were moaning for not having a Sony sensor anymore, Ogl the first.
This is all ridiculous, if it performs it's good. Nothing else.

[ogl]

Yeah before K20 arrived, people were moaning for not having a Sony sensor anymore, Ogl the first.
This is all ridiculous, if it performs it's good. Nothing else.

Show me my post about it, please. I don't understand why you pass the desirable for reality...

I always says that I like Samsung CMOS's colours more than Sony CMOS.
Only one thing I don't like - no CCD sensors anymore.

[rparmar]

Don't fixate on megapixels. 6MP is enough for most applications. In fact, I have printed 6x4" photos from 1MP images and they look perfect.

The only time you need more is when printing at large sizes, while maintaining high PPI. A decent improvement on 12MP might be 24MP but a truly significant one would require a jump to 48MP.

The difference between 12MP and 14MP is truly meaningless. Any purchase decision based on such a criterion is misinformed.

[knoxploration]

Don't fixate on megapixels. 6MP is enough for most applications. In fact, I have printed 6x4" photos from 1MP images and they look perfect.

The only time you need more is when printing at large sizes, while maintaining high PPI. A decent improvement on 12MP might be 24MP but a truly significant one would require a jump to 48MP.

The difference between 12MP and 14MP is truly meaningless. Any purchase decision based on such a criterion is misinformed.

You're correct, and it's an important point.

The difference in linear resolution between a twelve megapixel camera and a fourteen megapixel one is a paltry 8%. Compared to its twelve megapixel equivalent, there are only an extra 320 pixel columns, and 240 pixel rows, in each fourteen megapixel image.

To get that extra 8% of resolution, you lose a little over 14% of the available area per pixel, though -- and the reduction in active (photodiode) area is even greater, because without switching to a smaller process size, the wiring area per pixel remains unchanged. Gapless microlenses can help to some degree, but they're not perfect, and the smaller the pixel size, the harder it gets to fabricate perfect microlenses.

So you're gathering a noticeably lesser amount of light per pixel, thereby decreasing the signal to noise ratio appreciably, and getting noisier images as a result -- all for an increase in resolution that's arguably not even noticeable on-screen or in-print.

Personally, my own preference would've been for the megapixel war to end at around six megapixels for compacts, and ten to twelve megapixels for APS-C DSLRs. More than that is overkill, for the sizes most people are printing at (and the amount of cropping they do). All it does is reduce image quality, increase the storage space taken up for images, decrease the battery life and possibly the burst depth of the camera (perhaps the frame rate too, if the camera's mechanics aren't the limiting factor), and increase the CPU power required to process each image on your PC. A whole lot of negatives, for very little positive.

[falconeye]

So you're gathering a noticeably lesser amount of light per pixel, thereby decreasing the signal to noise ratio appreciably, and getting noisier images as a result -- all for an increase in resolution that's arguably not even noticeable on-screen or in-print.

Thanks for this intelligent comment which emphasizes the 2nd order effects of pixel size rather than repeating the oversimplifying "bigger is better" argument.

Nevertheless, I'll tempted to comment that the effects you describe as of yet have no measurable impact for pixel sizes as are typical for SLR. At least not according to DxO and for pixel sizes of 6microns or larger. Probably not at 4microns as well. Certainly an issue at 2microns though.

So, one has to look at absolute numbers here and to take the micro lens efficiency into account too.

[B.Rosenfeld]

KR v K7, original post

Don't fixate on megapixels. 6MP is enough for most applications. In fact, I have printed 6x4" photos from 1MP images and they look perfect.

The only time you need more is when printing at large sizes, while maintaining high PPI. A decent improvement on 12MP might be 24MP but a truly significant one would require a jump to 48MP.

The difference between 12MP and 14MP is truly meaningless. Any purchase decision based on such a criterion is misinformed.

I understand that 6MP is optimal for most applications. Hearing it from another person does make me feel like I can wait a little longer to upgrade. I'm still using a K2000. There is one thing, high resolution is something I need when I take long exposures of moving water. When I take such shots with film, I'll likely be using 25 ASA. Unfortunately many DSLRs don't go down that far and those that do are beyond what I would be able to pay for. For this reason, if I had to choose between the KR at it's rumored specs and the K7, I would choose the K7. Furthermore, when the K5 is released, the price of the K7 will drop down further making it even more attractive over the KR. Especially to those that already own lenses and are on a budget. If you had to choose a camera priced under $1000, and you already owned lenses, would you rather go for the newest entry level model or the recently-made-obsolete flagship model when they are both selling for around the same amount? How could Pentax make the KR better than the K7 and keep the price below $900?

[Asahiflex]

for around the same amount? How could Pentax make the KR better than the K7 and keep the price below $900?

Call me stupid, but I think Pentax can differentiate themselves much better by providing weatherproof designs in their DSLR's and lenses. That means using it in pouring rain for an indefinite amount of time, maybe even the ability to use them below the water surface like the Optio W90 does. On top of that make them more cold-proof.

Not sure if it is technically feasible, but it definitely would be an unique selling point, and well worth the higher prices. The unsealed K-x (maybe a Super version) can still serve the bottom end of the market.

The idea is... Make the nature's elements the domain of Pentaxians. From the sea to the moon: a Pentax can work there and beyond

[Supernaut]

Regarding weatherproofing...
If it will be possible, my bet is that this is the way to go for the EVIL line. In that case they can make the lens mount totally sealed if the build from ground up

[rparmar]

How could Pentax make the KR better than the K7 and keep the price below $900?

Why not base your purchase decisions on the real prices and models and not rumours and complete speculation? You may as well ask about the price of cameras on Mercury or the surface of the sun.

If you want exemplary shots of moving water I would stick with film or get a larger format sensor. Though I enjoy shooting landscapes with my K20D I am well aware of its limits in resolving detail. Buying a "better" model in the same line is not going to solve this problem.

[lol101]

$509 for an imported, grey-market lens with no manufacturer warranty. $519 for the actual, warranted item. (and the Pentax can be had for $10 less at Adorama, too, cancelling out some more of the difference.)

And that Canon not only lacks IS, it lacks WR, has a consumer plastic housing and a mixture of plastic / metal internals, versus a metal one for the Pentax, and yet it is still MUCH bigger and heavier. (600g / 3.1"D x 4.7" L for Canon, 340g / 2.6"D x 3.2"L for Pentax).

It does have one advantage that I'll give you -- the quieter USM motor. Other than that though, the Pentax (on paper) outperforms it handily for somewhere between 15-20% more cost.

* Not only quieter AF but considerably faster also.
* AF limiter (very handy for non-macro uses).
* Internal focus (size difference is VERY relative if you consider the way the Pentax extends at closer range).

I'd call that a draw. As for the "consumer plastics" vs "metal" please show me the impact this has, other than cosmetic, on photography... I didn't hear anyone complain about "consumer plastics" when the D-FA lens was the only choice we had.

[ManuH]

* Not only quieter AF but considerably faster also.

But rather irrelevant for macro. And actually I found the D-FA 100mm to be one of the fastest AF lens in the Pentax line-up (go figure!).

* AF limiter (very handy for non-macro uses).

I also used to think it was useful but after using the Tamron with focus limiter and the D-FA 100mm, I think it's really no big deal. The only times it will make a difference is when the AF is racking through the range which almost never happen when tracking subjects with my K20D and K-7. And with the Quick shift feature you can avoid most of the hunting.

* Internal focus (size difference is VERY relative if you consider the way the Pentax extends at closer range).

Size in use is not that important, it's in the bag that it's the most important. The new D-FA 100mm WR is even better because the hood is not as large as the old D-FA.

As for the "consumer plastics" vs "metal" please show me the impact this has, other than cosmetic, on photography... I didn't hear anyone complain about "consumer plastics" when the D-FA lens was the only choice we had.

I often heard people complaining on the build quality compared to the old FA. And it's true that the old D-FA are rather on the low end of the usually good Pentax build quality. The D-FA WR on the other hand is really nice. You have to see it for yourself, it's much nicer and it's not only cosmetic: the manual AF is also much smoother.

[knoxploration]

Thanks for this intelligent comment which emphasizes the 2nd order effects of pixel size rather than repeating the oversimplifying "bigger is better" argument.

Nevertheless, I'll tempted to comment that the effects you describe as of yet have no measurable impact for pixel sizes as are typical for SLR. At least not according to DxO and for pixel sizes of 6microns or larger. Probably not at 4microns as well. Certainly an issue at 2microns though.

So, one has to look at absolute numbers here and to take the micro lens efficiency into account too.

True, we're certainly not yet up against the same wall with DSLRs that we're fighting with attempts to fit 14 megapixels in a compact sensor. ;-) Maybe I'm subconsciously trying to do my part to forestall that nightmare from repeating itself, with a little education.

[k54]

I don't think my D3000 and D5000 friends have given a single thought to the upgrade path. If any thought at all, it's that Nikon has other cameras. Period.

Actually, they'd rather not think about that upgrade. They got into the market low for a reason and usually buy, at most, one add'l lens. For now.

Later? Some will move up. But a lot won't. A flash, a sports lens ..... Then time for a new "something". May not be DSLR. May not have C/N mount. They're simply not looking that far ahead.

Pentax, though, may find a way to attract would-be enthusiasts. Enthusiasts in the making. Enthusiasts with shallow pockets. Need something distinctive there. We'll see.

I agree, I broke my Nikon D80 and my budget is tight so I bought the Pentax K-x instead of the Nikon D90.

I was happy with it and compared it with my friend who just bought a Nikon D90. I see no difference in low ISO and my K-x is better in higher ISO with the same lighting and subject.

Both Pentax and Nikon have 18-55 mm lens. I turned both lenses to full out of focus at 35mm and shot at the same scene at same lighting and distance.

I was surprised that the Pentax focused faster than the Nikon that is contrary to what I read on some Pentax users here on complaining that the Pentax AF is slow.

However, the Nikon AF motor is silent as compared to the noisy Pentax AF motor. BUT I liked the noise made by the Pentax because I can hear it if it is focusing in AF mode when I am shooting pictures without looking at the view finder (I don't use live view) as I sometimes forgot to switch the AF button when changing lenses.