[ogl]

24 MP sensor - 3 fps and 5 fps version.
new 16 MP sensor high-speed sensor will be in D800.

[eurostar]

2 FF sensors? Aside from the "noisy" 24MP, which one it is? And the Kodak is a CCD (no LV, no video = no market). If Pentax makes an FF they won't select a mediocre sensor. Sensor is what killed the MZ-D and almost killed the 645D. I'm sure that the lack of success of A850/A900 is related to the sensor because otherwise they are very nice full featured camera (except for the lack of LV and video).

They lack Canon or Nikon name engraved on, too...

[ogl]

At the time Pentax was ready for the 645D, they only had a 18MP sensor available. .

Nonsense. There were already KAF-22000, KAF-31600 and KAF-39000. Pentax wasn't ready to launch 645D 2-3 year ago...

[ilya80]

24 MP has rather good DR and colours. Noise is not problems. Bad colours and IQ is MORE problem.

CCD - I bet that a lot of Pentaxian buy FF camera from Pentax with Kodak CCD without any video and LV.

Quoted for very truth. I`d rather take CCD sensor over CMOS one for FF slr. Video can be had dirt cheap with any APS-C camera.

[Blue]

They lack Canon or Nikon name engraved on, too...

[Pentaxor]

Dont wait.... Go FF now, and then change body next year.

Otherwise you will just be unhappy and have no lust to acctually use your stuff, that you know you're going to sell anyway. I mean....its just gadgets....do what you want NOW.

Its taking pictures that matters.

it's not actually having no lust. I'm just finding some lenses of certain lenses a little bit crippled for use. lenses that could had worked much better or close for comfort. I know that some would say that I can always get a different focal length for equivalence, but it won't still be the same. don' get me wrong, I love most of the Glasses here. and if only if it were possible to mount them on another system without any compromises, I would had done so. if not, some other manufacturer would build an FF camera with full functionality for the K-mount if Pentax refuses to make one. I'm not completely leaving Pentax, but I have to sell some of the lenses which are not going to get used since I'm going to buy and use some other lenses with the same focal length equivalent for FF usage.
Patience is Virtue, so no need for a rush. unless as you said it if I were unhappy, then there's no point. aside from that, I'm garnering enough resources to get what could be what I need for next year plus the added benefit of saving money for other things. I'm also practical you know.

[sjwaldron]

Quoted for very truth. I`d rather take CCD sensor over CMOS one for FF slr. Video can be had dirt cheap with any APS-C camera.

This!

[Pentaxor]

But these delusional FFfanboys think it's the 'holy grail' for some reason. Well they can measurebate on APS-C vs FF till they go blind.

Gimme a 645D any day.

I believe it's unfair to call those who wanted a FF to be called as fanboys. here is my challenge, if an APS-C sensor camera can have the same DOF control and FOV of that of a FF sensor camera, please feel free to call us delusional.

[Pentaxor]

2 FF sensors? Aside from the "noisy" 24MP, which one it is? And the Kodak is a CCD (no LV, no video = no market). If Pentax makes an FF they won't select a mediocre sensor. Sensor is what killed the MZ-D and almost killed the 645D. I'm sure that the lack of success of A850/A900 is related to the sensor because otherwise they are very nice full featured camera (except for the lack of LV and video).

Sony priced their A900 too high that no one gave it a second look.
their A850 is their budget otherwise crippled version of their A900. who would be interested in a rip-off product? aside from that, do you know how much their Sony compatible lenses cost?


by the time Sony decided to decrease their prices, it came a lil too late for that. the other players already developed a much newer and better sensor compared to what both those FF dlsr have. odd though that Sony didn't even consider putting their new Exmor CMOS sensor to their FF cameras rather than sell their sensor.

CCD sensor is mediocre? is this a joke?
I'll try not to laugh hard regarding the 645D almost getting killed because of the sensor. it's has barely come out of the market and it is doing extremely well in real world use in terms of IQ.

NO LV/ NO VIDEO = NO MARKET ? this is entirely false. Leicas are luxury FF rangefinders with no LV/ NO VIDEO, but they certainly have a market and cult following going on. did I mention that they are also using film as well? so that's another market. not everyone using a camera would use video or LV. most photographers would still use VF for serious photography. LV has it's disadvantages or even more disadvantageous to use on certain occasions or practices. photographers can live without it. if you want video, you can always get yourself a camcorder, which is another market.

[Pentaxor]

CCD - I bet that a lot of Pentaxian buy FF camera from Pentax with Kodak CCD without any video and LV.

count me in on that one. wait? Am I considered as a market?

[ManuH]

CCD sensor is mediocre? is this a joke?

No what I said actually, although the proximity of the two sentences could have lead to this interpretation. That said, it's no mistery that CCD perfom poorly at high ISO. At low ISO they have some following but... I'm not convinced that they are better than CMOS.

NO LV/ NO VIDEO = NO MARKET ? this is entirely false. Leicas are luxury FF rangefinders with no LV/ NO VIDEO, but they certainly have a market and cult following going on.

Leica are Leica, they can even get away with no AF. They do well, they're overpriced, in a different class. But as a market, it's very niche. Just like the 645D BTW. But they offer things that other systems do not so you can accept some limitations.

BTW, why Leica chose the Kodak CCD sensor? Do you really it was because of magical CCD properties? I'd rather think it's because it was the only one available. If they loved CCD so much, why use CMOS in the X1 (probably the same Sony sensor used the K-x)?

[Pentaxor]

No what I said actually, although the proximity of the two sentences could have lead to this interpretation. That said, it's no mistery that CCD perfom poorly at high ISO. At low ISO they have some following but... I'm not convinced that they are better than CMOS.



Leica are Leica, they can even get away with no AF. They do well, they're overpriced, in a different class. But as a market, it's very niche. Just like the 645D BTW. But they offer things that other systems do not so you can accept some limitations.

BTW, why Leica chose the Kodak CCD sensor? Do you really it was because of magical CCD properties? I'd rather think it's because it was the only one available. If they loved CCD so much, why use CMOS in the X1 (probably the same Sony sensor used the K-x)?

it is not accurate to say that CCD is poor at high ISO. in fact, the newer or better designed CCD sensors perform extremely well at High ISO, coupled that with better dynamic range. the old K200D for example even at it's short stint, was widely praised for it's better High ISO noise handling and much better IQ detail compared to the noisy CMOS counterparts of it's generation. even today it can still pack a punch if IQ was only your concern and not HIGH ISO performance over 1600. today we have Fuji's Super-CCD's EXR and Sigma Foveon sensors.
I would say this personally and conveniently say that I would still prefer CCD over CMOS when it comes to picture quality. the only think that works for the CMOS sensor is it's video capability over CCD.

the camera industry is fine even before the video dlsr came into the spotlight. LV and video is a camera feature made to boost sales and marketing but not necessarily would compete against the camera still-photography market. even if they would release a FF digital camera without Video or LV, just provide them a big and bright VF and it would sell and have a significant market, providing that it meets the photo IQ demands of today's photographers.


why use the CMOS sensor on the X1? this is possibly due to cost concerns. Leica is trying to produce cost-effective budget type digital pseudo rangefinder-like fixed lens camera. you can use the Leica M9 CCD which is a lot expensive as reference.

[ManuH]

I would say this personally and conveniently say that I would still prefer CCD over CMOS when it comes to picture quality. the only think that works for the CMOS sensor is it's video capability over CCD.

Personally I don't care about the technology used, I'm pragmatic, it's the result that counts. If a CCD can beat a CMOS, then it's fine by me. But it won't be the Kodak 18MP used in the M9. The Sony 24MP CMOS is better in just about every way (DR, color, noise, resolution...).

why use the CMOS sensor on the X1? this is possibly due to cost concerns. Leica is trying to produce cost-effective budget type digital pseudo rangefinder-like fixed lens camera. you can use the Leica M9 CCD which is a lot expensive as reference.

When you say "cost-effective budget", I'm laughing thinking about the price of the X1. The X1 is APS-C sized and its sensor probably costs no more than the K-x one. Sony had 10MP and 14MP CCD APS-C sensors, why not these ones instead of the 12MP CMOS?

[Blue]

The D-Lux-4 and LX3/LX5 cameras do HD video with a 1/1.63 CCD which are approaching the 4/3 sensor size.

[Pentaxor]

Personally I don't care about the technology used, I'm pragmatic, it's the result that counts. If a CCD can beat a CMOS, then it's fine by me. But it won't be the Kodak 18MP used in the M9. The Sony 24MP CMOS is better in just about every way (DR, color, noise, resolution...).

you are free to think what you believe in.

When you say "cost-effective budget", I'm laughing thinking about the price of the X1. The X1 is APS-C sized and its sensor probably costs no more than the K-x one. Sony had 10MP and 14MP CCD APS-C sensors, why not these ones instead of the 12MP CMOS?

you are aware that you are comparing a digital pseudo rangefinder-like Leica to that of a basic K-x or Sony camera, right? although this is not even the point of argument. the argument is about producing and selling budget Leica, not look for a cheap alternative CMOS camera other than Leica. this is for those Leica lovers who can't afford an M9. in Pentax lingo, it would be me or you who can't afford a 645D, and wanted a cheaper Pentax camera instead.

*also, what I also meant by cost-effective is the cost of top end CMOS sensor versus top end CCD sensor. basically Leica wanted to profit more by cutting costs of production, therefore opting for a cheaper sensor alternative. in short, cost-cutting. now does this make the sensor better? or is it more of a marketing move?