[illdefined]

Um, where's the analysis of RAW headroom? Where is the comparison of high ISO RAW noise (the last link only provides JPEGs for comparison)? The verdict on this sensor is STILL not in!

the RAW noise comparisons are at the bottom of this page: Sony SLT-A55 Review: 9. Noise and Noise Reduction: Digital Photography Review

...and selectable in the menus here: Sony SLT-A55 Review: 17. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review

RAW Headroom analysis is here: Sony SLT-A55 Review: 12. Photographic tests (RAW): Digital Photography Review

[philippe]

Um, where's the analysis of RAW headroom? Where is the comparison of high ISO RAW noise (the last link only provides JPEGs for comparison)? The verdict on this sensor is STILL not in!

Exactly, and, correct me if I am wrong, I thought that, finally, the IQ is also 'influenced' by the processor-and-software. I don't think that Sonny and Pentax are using the same processors-and-software…
So, wait and see!

[jon.partsch]

the RAW noise comparisons are at the bottom of this page: Sony SLT-A55 Review: 9. Noise and Noise Reduction: Digital Photography Review

Only a few models are available for comparison here, and notably, not our beloved K-x.

...and selectable in the menus here: Sony SLT-A55 Review: 17. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review

Okay, as far as I can tell, RAW shots from the A55 are totally not available for comparison here - only from other cameras against A55 JPEG - totally useless.

RAW Headroom analysis is here: Sony SLT-A55 Review: 12. Photographic tests (RAW): Digital Photography Review

Okay, I guess I should have read these pages a little more carefully, but the RAW headroom comparison in the clouds is kinda' useless - very little fine detail here, and little ability to judge per-channel clipping. So, what they are saying is that the sensor is basically capable of 10 stops of DR - that sounds pretty good to me.

[illdefined]

Okay, as far as I can tell, RAW shots from the A55 are totally not available for comparison here - only from other cameras against A55 JPEG - totally useless.
.

you are mistaken. make sure you set the RAW/JPEG menu to RAW on top of the picture and hit SET.
the only RAWs missing are for ISO 400+ for the NEX-5

[jon.partsch]

but with Canon's entry level being 18mp and even Nikon moving on from 12mp after so long, I fear Pentax could be seen as staying in place.

A minor point here, but perhaps an important one - canon's current base model the Rebel XS ($550 US) is still only 10 MP, and the Rebel T2i (at 18 MP) is $900 US. They also sell a 10 MP camera (the EOS 1-D mk. III) for $4000 US. If canon is so successful with it's lineup, then there must be more to what various consumers will buy than purely higher and higher MP counts.

[jon.partsch]

you are mistaken. make sure you set the RAW/JPEG menu to RAW on top of the picture and hit SET.
the only RAWs missing are for ISO 400+ for the NEX-5

Oops, I guess you are right. I didn't have an option for RAW, but then I refreshed the page and there it was!! I must have been getting an earlier version of the page that was stored in my computer's cache.

You are no liar - I'll state it for the record.

[illdefined]

A minor point here, but perhaps an important one - canon's current base model the Rebel XS ($550 US) is still only 10 MP, and the Rebel T2i (at 18 MP) is $900 US. They also sell a 10 MP camera (the EOS 1-D mk. III) for $4000 US. If canon is so successful with it's lineup, then there must be more to what various consumers will buy than purely higher and higher MP counts.

Those models may still sell but they are almost 2 and 3 years old respectively. Both those lines have been updated and don't represent the latest in their lineups as the K-r would.

[theperception2008]

Admittedly I don't know too much about the various censors but If I am reading these posts the lower sensor is better, less noisy? Isn't it smarter then to stay with that for now if the other sensor has more noise in RAW? Who cares about changing if what is new isn't maybe the best option? I'd much rather see Pentax stay with something that works better but that is older than see them use something that might be less optimal, wouldn't you? It doesn't really make sense to me to push for something just because it's "new" if indeed it's not the best choice.

Newer isn't always better. If it was so many PC people wouldn't still have XP on their machines versus Vista/Windows 7. Actually that's a pretty good example. Both OS's have been highly hyped and early adoption has been urged but you know I've tried them both out, fairly, and honestly for all it's security flaws XP is still the better OS if you ask me. The Vista, the Win 7 they just tend to restrict my choices and get in my way. I can protect my machine in other ways. I'm a power user. I don't need my hand held but Vista/Win 7, they pretty much insist upon it no matter how much you try to work around it no matter which flavor you try. I tend to find that completely annoying in the long run even if it is a bit more secure. To me the trade off just isn't worth it, hence both of my machines run updated XP with security software and such.

If it's not broken don't fix it....

More MP's and shiny new sensors those are great things if it all works well. But rushing to add things that might or not be best just because you can? That's not always such a bright idea. Me. I want a steady performing camera far more than I want more flash and dash. Don't get me wrong, I'm amused by all the colors and so forth, and of course I want to be able to do more than I can with a 6MP upscale point and shoot (My Fuji...) but I'm not really too sure I need that many MP anyhow, or video etc.

It's a camera. Picture quality that's got to be the bottom line and if the older sensor still works better than why not keep it till we have something that can actually surpass it? I wouldn't fault Pentax for that. I don't think I'd want "new" actually if in the long run the "new" camera isn't actually the better camera.

I completely understand your point. However, many users stated the same as you have stated. The K-7 was in essence an improved K-20D. Smaller body, better focus, faster focus, more FPS, improved metering, better battery (more or less), and look at the criticism that the K-7 received. Pentax was then said to have not pushed the envelope far enough.

Pentax does listen to the consumer and to this site. Funny thing is that when they do listen, people then complain that the camera does not have enough resolution, not high enough MP, ISO isn't high enough, etc. Yes the RAW files of the K-7 are a little more noisy than the K20D but not by much. The K-7 was in my opinion what everyone had wanted and when it arrived, it was criticized for being a camera that was not a far enough leap.

I think the K-r and the K-5 will be fantastic cameras and can not wait for them. :-) My K100D needs a bigger brother to accompany the new Mac I have for it...

To stay on topic... Pentax has a way of squeezing more out of the sensor than Sony does :-P in addition, I am pretty sure that the translucent mirror has an effect on the noise, has to as it is an element that interfere's with the light's path toward the sensor...

[jon.partsch]

the RAW noise comparisons are {snip} selectable in the menus here: Sony SLT-A55 Review: 17. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review

Okay, it looks to me that the Rebel T2i (550D) is a little bit better here in high ISO, the K-x looks almost the same, but at a lower resolution, of course. If the semi-translucent mirror is having an impact, then this sensor, used in a pentax DSLR could actually marginally beat the K-x in high ISO noise, or come close to the canon 18MP sensor - that would be fantastic!!

[jon.partsch]

Those models may still sell but they are almost 2 and 3 years old respectively. Both those lines have been updated and don't represent the latest in their lineups as the K-r would.

Yes, that is a fair point, but canon is still making and selling these older models, so there must be people out there that value older, proven technology, or they wouldn't sell. Cannon is not going to keep old models on the market if they can't make money on them.

[illdefined]

I completely understand your point. However, many users stated the same as you have stated. The K-7 was in essence an improved K-20D. Smaller body, better focus, faster focus, more FPS, improved metering, better battery (more or less), and look at the criticism that the K-7 received. Pentax was then said to have not pushed the envelope far enough.

Pentax does listen to the consumer and to this site. Funny thing is that when they do listen, people then complain that the camera does not have enough resolution, not high enough MP, ISO isn't high enough, etc. Yes the RAW files of the K-7 are a little more noisy than the K20D but not by much. The K-7 was in my opinion what everyone had wanted and when it arrived, it was criticized for being a camera that was not a far enough leap.

Even if the K-7 was merely supposed to be an improved K20D, (The K-7 was supposed to be a new paradigm for Pentax and priced accordingly), then it crucially failed in the one aspect that most consider the most important, image quality. Yes it was significantly improved in other areas, but consumers and the industry as a whole wanted to see progress not a compromise which ultimately the K-7 represented.

If you don't believe me, just count the reviews telling people who already have a K20D to sit this one out. It should've been better or equal to than the K20D in every aspect, as hopefully these new Pentax models will be.

[jon.partsch]

I completely understand your point. However, many users stated the same as you have stated. The K-7 was in essence an improved K-20D. Smaller body, better focus, faster focus, more FPS, improved metering, better battery (more or less), and look at the criticism that the K-7 received. Pentax was then said to have not pushed the envelope far enough.

I can only speak for myself, but when the K-7 came out, I was impressed. Smaller, lighter, better FPS, better screen, and better VF made it a worthy successor to the K20D, but when the K-x came out it stole a lot of the K-7's thunder, and made the K-7 seem less of a good thing. Are you sure that the criticism the K-7 received wasn't mostly in light of the performance of the (much less expensive) K-x?

[illdefined]

Yes, that is a fair point, but canon is still making and selling these older models, so there must be people out there that value older, proven technology, or they wouldn't sell. Cannon is not going to keep old models on the market if they can't make money on them.

Fine, then keep the K-r on the market, nobody is arguing against that. Photokina 2010 is approaching and Pentax needs to announce competitive models relevant to today, not yesterday.

[illdefined]

I can only speak for myself, but when the K-7 came out, I was impressed. Smaller, lighter, better FPS, better screen, and better VF made it a worthy successor to the K20D, but when the K-x came out it stole a lot of the K-7's thunder, and made the K-7 seem less of a good thing. Are you sure that the criticism the K-7 received wasn't mostly in light of the performance of the (much less expensive) K-x?

that only made things worse. the tragic flaw with the K-7 from the beginning was that in order to have video, its still images weren't as good as its much cheaper direct descendent. Most likely the reason they split with Samsung. I believe thats the consensus.

plenty has been said and discussed about this, lets focus on Pentax's next cameras, the topic of this thread.

[jon.partsch]

that only made things worse. the tragic flaw with the K-7 from the beginning was that in order to have video, its still images weren't as good as its much cheaper direct descendent. Most likely the reason they split with Samsung. I believe thats the consensus.

plenty has been said and discussed about this, lets focus on Pentax's next cameras, the topic of this thread.

Fine, I will talk about the next cameras. if the K-r is to be a 12mp sensor and the other rumored specs are true then I may (as in maybe) choose it over the K-5. The MP count is low on my list of priorities. DR, high ISO and FPS are the more important considerations. It looks like these may all improve over the K-x (I think they'd almost have to in order to sell a camera with the same MP count as a lower priced model).

We now have some clues as to the performance of the sensor we THINK will be in the K-5, but what about the K-r sensor? Is it going to be the same one as in the K-x, the 14 MP sensor in the latest sonys or something else entirely?