[ogl]

I'm not sure that K200D will have 10 Mp SONY sensor.
Nikon will replace D80, Sony - A100 in January-February, 2008. And it could be another and cheaper version of 12 Mp CMOS Sony.

[ogl]

K20D will use technology like this
Search Result

This CMOS semiconductor device is equipped with a dual work function metal gate structure that has been formed using a process technology capable of adjusting the work function of a PMOS device and that of a NMOS device independently. As a result, it is possible to significantly reduce or remove an unfavorable influence on the reliability of a gate insulating film.

[RMabo]

K20D will use technology like this
Search Result

This CMOS semiconductor device is equipped with a dual work function metal gate structure that has been formed using a process technology capable of adjusting the work function of a PMOS device and that of a NMOS device independently. As a result, it is possible to significantly reduce or remove an unfavorable influence on the reliability of a gate insulating film.

Yes, that explains it. Crystal clear! Now we all know.

[thibs]

Yes, that explains it. Crystal clear! Now we all know.

LOL Roland

[rvannatta]

I'm not sure that K200D will have 10 Mp SONY sensor.
Nikon will replace D80, Sony - A100 in January-February, 2008. And it could be another and cheaper version of 12 Mp CMOS Sony.

Oh yes, the MP race. sort of like the Hz race in computers. IT went on long after it was irrelevant.

Not to sure of the real world benefit of MP's beyond 10 or so, but of course I want 'em. It's not too hard to actually see the benefits of 10mp over 6, but does anyone think that a move to 14 mps will change as much as moving from 6 to 10????

[CSpronken]

It's not too hard to actually see the benefits of 10mp over 6,

At what screen size/zoom level, print size?

but does anyone think that a move to 14 mps will change as much as moving from 6 to 10????

This it will change 19% less resolution wise. (and I doubt it will change anything at all in most real life situations, except larger files of course).

[thibs]

Oh yes, the MP race. sort of like the Hz race in computers. IT went on long after it was irrelevant.

It is wrong IMO. The Hz in itself is of irrelevent if taken as a mesure of anything else but frequency which only importance is a marketing one. But it doesn't mean more Hz is irrelevent. For given architecture more Hz IS relevent.

More Mpix at a given noise level IS pretty much relevent. No, sacrificing noise all the way just for a couple of Mpix is no good idea but a balance is needed. And some DO need those little pixels.

[rvannatta]

It is wrong IMO. The Hz in itself is of irrelevent if taken as a mesure of anything else but frequency which only importance is a marketing one. But it doesn't mean more Hz is irrelevent. For given architecture more Hz IS relevent.

More Mpix at a given noise level IS pretty much relevent. No, sacrificing noise all the way just for a couple of Mpix is no good idea but a balance is needed. And some DO need those little pixels.

little pixels are useful to a point. I've got an *istD that I will give to my daughter for christmas
'cause she wants it and I don't use it, and a K10 which I love, but if the Pentax "Next" is a 14mp, I'll run out and buy it (along with a new computer) because the K10 has filled up
my hard drive.---imagine that.... though I would have trouble convincing myself to dump the K10 if the "Next" is 12mp model.--it would need a lot of other whistles and bells.

My point is not that at the moment we are beyond the possibilty of useful increases in MPs,
but what about 20 mps, or 40 mps.???? At some point you have so overwhelmed the capacity of the optics to resolve things that adding mps is a waste of R & D.

Maybe at some point its time to stop spending R & D dollars on more MP's and instead spend it on more ISO's or more thruput. Why can't I take photos at athe maximum cycling speed of the shutter until I run out of storage space or the battery runs down.?

Now one could surmise that given the current mechancial features of the SLR cameras we know and love, efforts to take a 100 FPS over a long time would beat the mechanical aspects of the camera to death, besides jamming up the downstream data pipe, but with an
electronic shutter (turn the sensor off and on--instead of using mechanical parts, and using a real time digital viewfinder, all moving parts can be eliminated, and the technology for bigger data pipes already exists, so why can't if have a 100 frames a second at a a1 1/100 of a second exposure (or something approaching that)?

Once the mp's get beyond the optical limitations of our lenses would you rather have still more mp's, or have the R & D dollars spent creating an FPS race to a 100 or even a 1000 FPS.

Indeed it is not apparent to me that FPS is even relevant to digital photography. If the value of all pixels is recorded and downloaded over time, time can be just another dimension tothe data, and after the fact we can slice a section of that time out anywhere we want.

[RMabo]

100 fps? That is not photography.
Movie is 24 fps, video is 25 fps (PAL/SECAM) and 30 fps (NTSC).

[thibs]

I understand but thinking that soon manufacturers will stop promoting Mpix is wishful thinking.

Did CPUs "go back" (Hz speaking) after P4 demise? Yes.
Did Intel (and AMD) stop promoting newest model as having higher MHz than prvious one? No. For a very simple reason: the average guy knows only MHz as a comparison. Which is the reason so many people buy dumb e.g. Celerons. Hey those are 3Ghz, no?

I'm convinced the average SLR buyes isn't smarter: More Mpix: More mm on the lens and bigger number for the aperture: that can only mean better right?

For now, I'm convinced at least Pentax understood there was something else to bring to the table. We will se if they manage and how much long they will sustain that (maybe 20 years who knows?, maybe 3 months).

[rvannatta]

100 fps? That is not photography.
Movie is 24 fps, video is 25 fps (PAL/SECAM) and 30 fps (NTSC).

It's not photography only because we think in mechanical sequences. Instead of having a series of time lapse photos that fool the eye, there is not a logical reason that each pixel
could not be connected to a real time feed leading to a storage facilityi. Each could report
its 'status' in millisecond intervals. Later with the data base on your computer you could
pull a scroll bar through time, and extract a data set at the precise moment of your choice.

Poor resolution and slow fps are backhaul and mechanical limitations that remain from thinking in a box. We are making cameras like we have for a 100 years with an electronic sensor
in the back of them instead of a roll of film.

[CSpronken]

1. Having a unique image pipeline for a new bottom level camera is too expensive - it is more expensive to make a special version of the PRIME to work with 6Mp, than to use the image pipeline from the K10D.

Like I said you could have used it on a 6mp version of the K10D (start 2007), 6mp version of the K100D (early or mid 2007) and an entry level 6mp version of the K100D replacement (start 2008). Compare to the sales those 3 models would be able to generate I don't think it would've been very expensive. I would agree though that doing it now and only use it on a 6mp version of the K100D replacement possibly would be too expensive.

The price difference between an 10Mp and 6Mp of the same camera would be too small. Why would anyone buy the 6Mp version when the competition has 10Mp?

You could say exactly the same thing about the K100D(S) why buy it when the competition has 10mp? Reason to buy a 6mp K10D could be:

- 50-100$ cheaper
- One stop better high ISO (debatable)
- faster 4-5fps (if possible and Pentax would choose to on a 6mp PRIME)
- Smaller file sizes

I'd agree with you that the majority of the market would choose the 10mp version, but because you spread the improved 6mp pipeline over time and over different models, my (pretty shaky) estimate would be that it would pay off.

2. Pentax sees the K100D as "advanced entry level" or "standard level" (EOS 400D, E-510, D40X) and K110D as "entry level" (D40). There won't be new "entry level" from Pentax, they will start with "standard level". This is below semi-pro. The K10D replacement is semi-pro/pro, not the K100D replacement.

It doesn't matter how Pentax sees it, what matters is how the market sees it. The market sees the capabilities and price of the K100D(S) as entry level. If the K100D replacement competes slightly above that level I agree they would still be able to attract entry level buyers. In my view if they had done a faster 6mp pipeline their model range could have looked like:

2007:

Entry level:
K100D, 6mp sensor, MSRP $699 (price breaker, to increase market share and attract buyers to your brand)
Early 2007 replaced by:
K100DS, 6mp sensor, prime, MSRP $599, same MSRP as current K100DS, but better sales due to better value (prime)

Standard level:
K90DS, 10mp sensor, prime, MSRP $699 (Competition for D40x, 400xti, A100, E510)

Semi-pro/pro level:
K11D, 6mp sensor, prime MSRP $799 (market champion, for customers and reviewers who want best ISO and features for extreme value)
K10D, 10mp sensor, prime MSRP $899


2008:

Entry level:
K100D replacement, 6mp sensor, prime, MSRP $549-599 (price breaker, to increase market share and attract buyers to your brand)
Or keep running the K100DS a little longer at MSRP $499-549

Standard level:
K100D replacement +, 10 or 14mp sensor, prime, MSRP $649-749 (depending on sensor used)

Semi-pro/pro level:
K10D replacement, 14mp sensor, prime MSRP $999-1299???

The K100D replacement is very competetive and it has some tricks that I really really doubt that the competition will match, simple because of different philosophy regarding what newcomers to the DSLR world needs and wants. Pentax has made a camera to grow with, and one that can be a nice 2nd body for K10D owners. So it will have some features not traditionally associated with beginner/consumer camera.

I'm sure it will be and can't wait to see what they come up with. I also don't want to sound negative or overly critical, I just hate to see that people wanting good features and an affordable price are (again) forced to buy a 10mp camera that doesn't perform as good high ISO wise. I wonder what kinda ISO performance they would be able to produce if the technology from the 14mp sensor would be applied to a 6mp one (not saying that would be a good route to pursue, just wondering). Any way, let's see what they come up with in January!

More Mpix at a given noise level IS pretty much relevent. No, sacrificing noise all the way just for a couple of Mpix is no good idea but a balance is needed. And some DO need those little pixels.

I agree, that's why I'm in favour of running high and low mp models in parallel.

[Arpe]

Casio (I think) already have a compact camera that does around 60fps.

Edit - Found this.

[rvannatta]

Casio (I think) already have a compact camera that does around 60fps.

Edit - Found this.

Yeah, with bursts to 300 fps., it's just a matter o f making the data pipe big enough to do something with the data--technology that already exists.

[Anastigmat]

I've seen no well-sourced information confirming that the old Sony sensor will be used. People are just assuming that based on the "K200 = stripped-down K10" theory. That theory could be true, but I think it'd be bad news for Pentax, which needs to keep up innovation at the entry level pricepoint too.

Pentax has the choice of the 6mp Sony sensor or the 10mp Sony sensor in the K200D. Since the K100D is using the 6mp sensor, it is therefore logical that the K200D will get the 10mp sensor. This camera will be priced at around the current selling price of the K10D (perhaps slightly lower). Therefore the K10D will most likely be discontinued, to be replaced by the K20D (or whatever name it may have). Pentax's lineup at the beginning of 2008 will consist of the 6mp K100D, 10mp K200D and 12mp (?) K20D. Hopefully by Photokina 2008, we will see a full frame Pentax with either a 12mp or 14mp full frame sensor.