[jon.partsch]

Lol... that's what I wanna know too. I was even about to to start a thread asking the same yesterday or the day before, but thought 'we don't need another thread like that'. There's no ryhme or reason to the designation. What'll be the progression, K-7 -> K-5 -> K-3-> K-1 -> and only after that will we have the camera everyone wants to buy & own for the un-conditional love it gives back to us, the K-9?

I can't wait for the Pentax (t)K-0 full frame. The TKO will be a real knockout!!

[Big G]

Regarding noise on long exposures, my K20D is about the same as my EOS 7D for long exposures - I'm talking several minutes which I do a lot of. I don't find my Canon body gives me any advantage in this respect.

[Raybo]

I seriously doubt the K-5 will be FF. Not at the $1600 US price point. That would be great, but I would be totally thrilled with the proverbial K-7 with K-x noise profile.

The Canon 60D = Cr@p; a cheap plastic body with MP overkill. How many consumers really own glass that can satisfy that pixel density? I would love to have heard that the K-5 would feature a 12MP sensor. I know a lot of people on here own a lot of fancy glass, but most consumers don't and can't take advantage of all those MP. I would love to see a semi-pro (APS-C) body from P'tax that would have fantastic low-light (small-aperture) performance to take full advantage of the superior kit lenses and consumer-level glass they have.

I can't wait to see the RAW performance of the Sony A55 vs. the A580, because that will be the sensor in the new K-5, and the K-5 should (hopefully) have better image processing than the A580 too).

The specs on the K-5 don't promise everything I hoped, and 16MP in a APS-C is getting a bit high for what I need, but if it is everything we think it will be, it will be hard for me to wait for the price to come down at all before I upgrade (then maybe I can convert my K110D to infrared

I was hoping for a "super" 12MP camera too, looks like MP win out this time and it makes me sad.
Maybe the k-r will be more to our likes!

[Fl_Gulfer]

I started with the K100d then the K-20 now I have the K-7 and I think I been going down hill on image quality. If the K5 isn't a whole lot better than the K7 then I'm just giving up and going back to fishing.

[janneman]

This is also similar to many Pentax film cameras - for example, the PZ- and SF series'. This may leave plenty of room for better models (possibly even FF?) as a K-3 or K-1 in the future!

FF is something new so they should keep the for APS and the FF should be something like MZ-S(d) or PZ1D.
If they go micromount, I'd suspect that to be a Pentax 110D
FF K-series would lead to confusion like Canon has now with the 60D, something completely new wit the name of what any thought to be the 50D successor.

[aleonx3]

The average consumer (or prosumer) is absolutely inundated with Canon ads... or any other camera manufacturer except Pentax. Many or most don't know anything about Pentax, and possibly even consider Pentax a clone type brand. This is unfortunate and it doesn't help matters when camera dealers will sway customers towards either Canon or Nikon.

Isn't this a common characteristic of new Canikon users? I am not implying that they all are, please don't get me wrong. I can only speak of my own experience, they have not done enough homework before choosing the right camera. They often rely on the ads (and sales persons) to tell them what is good for them. In fact, most of them that I know of can't even tell the difference between picture qualities from P&S and DLSR camera. There is one argument that I think it makes sense though: that is they can always find it easier to sell their used gear since un-informed new DSLR users are easier to find than those who are willing to spend time doing research before they buy.

[falconeye]

if 70% of the light reaches the sensor that equals (ln 0,7)/(ln 2) = -0,515.
A loss of half an EV-step

Correct.
And the effect on ISO is even simpler.
E.g., one has to compare e.g.,
SLR ISO 1600 vs. SLT ISO 1120 (1120 = 0.7 * 1600)
when comparing sensors and camera electronics.

Or when judging cameras,
SLT ISO 1600 should look like SLR ISO 2285 (2285 = 1600 / 0.7).

The effect of the semitransparent mirror is like a 1/SQRT(0.7) or 1.20 crop factor which is close to APS-H (if it were full frame) and increases the crop factor (as far as ISO is concerned) from 1.53 to 1.83.

So, the ISO performance of the Sony SLT cameras should be expected to be in the middle between APS-C and FourThird systems and if one ignores APS-C for a second, is almost (within 10% distance) like FourThirds.

...and apart from the D700, most don't have dramatically better high ISO performance than, say, the K-x.

The almost 2 years old D3X sensor (made by Sony?) is the point of reference. It matches the D700 in high ISO performance but has far better dynamic range. The newer D3s is a bit better in high ISO performance though.

K-x is more than one stop below D3X in high ISO performance and one stop below in dynamic range despite it being DR king in APSC land.

That's why I made a distinction between FF cameras and crippled FF cameras in my blog article about Photokina and FF.

[Kunzite]

The almost 2 years old D3X sensor (made by Sony?) is the point of reference. It matches the D700 in high ISO performance but has far better dynamic range. The newer D3s is a bit better in high ISO performance though.

Better/more expensive circuitry? Most likely, cost is an important factor - and we can't expect to see D3X-level electronics in an entry level camera...

[24X36NOW]

Here's a question...anyone know if the SR switch is coming back?

Not if they keep the K7 body size; loss of controls was one of the "features" of the smaller body.

[falconeye]

Better/more expensive circuitry? Most likely, cost is an important factor - and we can't expect to see D3X-level electronics in an entry level camera...

The cost differences in Nikon FF offers are political more than anything else.

Sure, the high pixel count in the D3X made the processor part more expensive two years ago. But it shouldn't be a big problem anymore. As for the circuitry ... because Sony sensors now have their A/D converters on-chip, it's all digital and doesn't play that big of a rôle anyway.

[Kunzite]

As for the circuitry ... because Sony sensors now have their A/D converters on-chip, it's all digital and doesn't play that big of a rôle anyway.

I have a hard time believing this, even if coming from you.
I'm not sure the price difference is fully justified (most likely, isn't) - but for sure there are a lot of hardware differences between D700 and the D3S.

[falconeye]

I have a hard time believing this, even if coming from you.
I'm not sure the price difference is fully justified (most likely, isn't) - but for sure there are a lot of hardware differences between D700 and the D3S.

Yes, there are.

First, one should compare D3X vs. D3s.

Almost identical bodies. D3s has 50% pixels and about twice burst speed. I am not sure, but the camera electronics may be similiar as it handles the same pixel throughput.

DPR prices D3X vs. D3s: $7400 vs. $5150 which is $2250 charged extra for a 6µm rather than 8.5µm pixel pitch FF sensor -- which I concede to have very low read-out noise.


Second, one should compare D3s vs. D700.

Not identical sensors (the D3s is a bit newer and better) but very similiar and both being 8.5µm (12MP). The D3s has a pro-caliber build quality and viewfinder and faster burst speed. D3s has a 300,000 actuations shutter. The D700 is weather-sealed and magnesium-alloy too, the D3s is a bit above what is D300s or K-7 in APSC land, the D700 sits a bit below.

DPR prices D3s vs. D700: $5150 vs. $2600 which is $2550 charged for somewhat larger buffers, faster CPU, better build quality and a faster/better viewfinder/mirror box.

I don't say the price premium cannot be justified. It's always that prices explode exponentially when the target markets become very small.


All I said that was that the D3X price premium isn't required at all to deliver it's image quality in a reasonably fast and well-built body like K-7. The circuitry does not need to be "special".

[Kunzite]

Not special, just high(est) quality. I don't believe the sensor is everything (even with on-chip A/D Cs); that's all.
But of course, it doesn't have to cost that much.

[falconeye]

Not special, just high(est) quality. I don't believe the sensor is everything (even with on-chip A/D Cs); that's all.
But of course, it doesn't have to cost that much.

We don't have the circuit diagrams so we cannot know for sure. But once you're in the digital domain, it's an either run or break thing. Quality shouldn't be affected. But I see how thermal design, stable power supply and proper shielding of the sensor can make a difference (not an expensive one though).

I know, die-hard audiophiles will insist that they hear the difference of different digital cables. But I would say they hear other things too as double blind tests could never confirm them Interestingly, none of them claims to hear the difference in network cables for network streamers.

[Gimbal]

But I see how thermal design, stable power supply and proper shielding of the sensor can make a difference (not an expensive one though).

And I think a sensor in a Pentax have a tougher environment then they have in a canicon due to the electrical coils of the SR. Not when doing normal photographing as the coils probably are inactive during read out from the sensor, but when filming or with live view enabled the sensor is surrounded by relatively high current and fluctuating magnetic fields. Sounds to me like a tough environment for the ridiculously small signals produced in a sensor. Obviously they managed to shield it off somehow.