[audiobomber]

From what i read the K7 has a lower "blur" filter (sorry forgot the name but that's the effect) on the sensor.
The K7 therefore has more noise but also has more details.

The DXOMark SNR graph is an equalized playing field. The K20D has slightly better noise performance than the K-7.

[ihasa]

By producing an adapter with the screw drive motor built it you gain all the advantages of K-mount support and gives you the advantages of using other lenses. People who don't own a single Pentax lens could pick-up the body and use it with other lens brands.

I agree, but sadly the released specs confirm a camera depth thick enough to use K-lenses without an adapter. It seems an odd decision but perhaps Pentax believe there are enough people in the market for a mirrorless who don't require it to be really small, or perhaps there is some other sort of innovation that will make the camera attractive - uprated video or weather proofing for example...

Or perhaps they're banking on people falling in love with the yellow leather trim...

[audiobomber]

It has to do with the shutter, but it also has to do with read out speed. Even with the K7's shutter, the K20 still wouldn't do 5 fps, i am sure.

I agree, the processsing wasn't there, but you said that adding video gave the capability to go beyond 3fps. There were DSLR's with 8 fps before video was added.

[audiobomber]

I think that's a bit of an odd example. All the Sony sensors perform way better than the Samsung sensors, and also manage to include video with higher definition and higher frame rates. The inclusion of video also helps drive sales, which drives R&D, which raises the bar for IQ...

That's not the point. The point is, the inclusion of video in DLSR's generates more noise, therefore lower performance. If you have identical cameras, same technology except one with video, the camera without video will perform better.

[Rondec]

I agree, the processsing wasn't there, but you said that adding video gave the capability to go beyond 3fps. There were DSLR's with 8 fps before video was added.

Let me rephrase. Video is a side effect of having (a) a CMOS type sensor (b) fast read out speeds and (c) the software in place necessary to encode video. The K20 was just on the edge of being able to do video with its 21 fps burst mode, but not quite there.

[Clavius]

That's not the point. The point is, the inclusion of video in DLSR's generates more noise, therefore lower performance. If you have identical cameras, same technology except one with video, the camera without video will perform better.

That is why it's such a shame that the video feature is forced upon us. The K5 has OK video performance, but still the cheap and tiny sony video recorder in on of my lens-slots of my camerabag beforms better. Therefore, only the sony gets used for video, and the K5 for photos. In the back of my head I know the performance of the K5 could have been even better, if that performance wasn't lowered by a videofunction that I don't even use.

[sjwaldron]

In my opinion, the output from the K-5 in video mode is pretty good. The K-7 on the other hand has quite a bit more noise when recording under the same conditions. Ive been making a lot of split screen videos where I use both cameras. They are using different lenses though, so that could be partly to blame. I also think the audio when using an external mic is pretty good too.

Do I want more? sure. Can we expect more? sure... just look at the Q. It has more manual control in video and there isn't any reason to expect that the next DSLR won't have even more.

[befocus]

The K5 has OK video performance, but still the cheap and tiny sony video recorder in on of my lens-slots of my camerabag beforms better.

to get the same IQ of an aps-c sensor dslr + budget vintage lens with a camcorder you have to you have to spend three-four times the price of the k-5

a dslr with some accessories (external audio recorder, steadycam, follow focus) is comparable or possibly exceed the IQ of a camcorder that costs 4 times as much, the only reason why the k-5 in particular can't is the fact that you can't select manually the video parameters

[sjwaldron]

to get the same IQ of an aps-c sensor dslr + budget vintage lens with a camcorder you have to you have to spend three-four times the price of the k-5

a dslr with some accessories (external audio recorder, steadycam, follow focus) is comparable or possibly exceed the IQ of a camcorder that costs 4 times as much, the only reason why the k-5 in particular can't is the fact that you can't select manually the video parameters

rolling shutter (or rather incremental read out of the sensor) that produces vertical jiggle is a pain too. I don't know anything about camcorders, but I'd assume they would be better in that respect considering it is their intended purpose?

[Winder]

I agree, but sadly the released specs confirm a camera depth thick enough to use K-lenses without an adapter. It seems an odd decision but perhaps Pentax believe there are enough people in the market for a mirrorless who don't require it to be really small, or perhaps there is some other sort of innovation that will make the camera attractive - uprated video or weather proofing for example...

Or perhaps they're banking on people falling in love with the yellow leather trim...

It seems to me Pentax is limiting its appeal to new users by restricting them to only the K-mount. Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Olympus, & Fuji have all opened the door to attract users from other mounts to come use their mirror-less systems with their existing glass, and that has opened the door for new lens sales. I think it is a big mistake. If you want to attract MORE people you need to appeal to more people. I just don't get it. Why limit yourself to a small user group who already own most of the lenses and wont be buying many more? I don't think Pentax wants to be in the lens business. I think they want Sigma to fill all of the holes for them.

[falconeye]

The point is, the inclusion of video in DLSR's generates more noise, therefore lower performance.

That is why it's such a shame that the video feature is forced upon us. [...] In the back of my head I know the performance of the K5 could have been even better, if that performance wasn't lowered by a videofunction ...

In the way this is stated the statements are false.

It is true that the K-7 sensor has some additional noise due to doubling the number of read-out channels. But this only applies to this particular implementation and would have been avoidable.

In particular, this argument does *not* apply to sensors where read-out channels are digital rather than analog. E.g., the K20D/K-7 read-out channels are analog where the K-x/K-r/K-5 (Sony) read-out channels are digital.

With the newer Sony sensors, the faster read-out for video does not negatively impact the sensor's noise profile. Actually, it beats almost every still-only sensor out there.

Another topic: Camcorders vs. still image camera video function: Still cameras have the problem that they use a tiny fraction of their pixels only in video. This causes alias artefacts and noise. But I expect this problem to be solved in the foreseeable future: the pixels can be binned and combined right after the on-sensor A/D conversion. Therefore, I assume that camcorders will soon terribly fall behind still cameras in video image quality. However, it is true that this has not happened yet (apart from the shallow DoF special effect).

[Winder]

In the way this is stated the statements are false.

It is true that the K-7 sensor has some additional noise due to doubling the number of read-out channels. But this only applies to this particular implementation and would have been avoidable.

In particular, this argument does *not* apply to sensors where read-out channels are digital rather than analog. E.g., the K20D/K-7 read-out channels are analog where the K-x/K-r/K-5 (Sony) read-out channels are digital.

With the newer Sony sensors, the faster read-out for video does not negatively impact the sensor's noise profile. Actually, it beats almost every still-only sensor out there.

Another topic: Camcorders vs. still image camera video function: Still cameras have the problem that they use a tiny fraction of their pixels only in video. This causes alias artefacts and noise. But I expect this problem to be solved in the foreseeable future: the pixels can be binned and combined right after the on-sensor A/D conversion. Therefore, I assume that camcorders will soon terribly fall behind still cameras in video image quality. However, it is true that this has not happened yet (apart from the shallow DoF special effect).

Is Sony currently the only sensor manufacturer with on-sensor A/D conversion? I am not aware of any other manufacturer who does this. It is a pretty amazing achievement.

[falconeye]

Is Sony currently the only sensor manufacturer with on-sensor A/D conversion? I am not aware of any other manufacturer who does this. It is a pretty amazing achievement.

I don't know. I don't kow another vendor who was able to do this.

It is amazing indeed. This is an early article (Feb 2007) describing the technoogy when it was still at the prototype stage. It is an interesting read ...

-> http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol47/pdf/featuring47.pdf

[ElJamoquio]

I agree, but sadly the released specs confirm a camera depth thick enough to use K-lenses without an adapter. It seems an odd decision but perhaps Pentax believe there are enough people in the market for a mirrorless who don't require it to be really small, or perhaps there is some other sort of innovation that will make the camera attractive - uprated video or weather proofing for example...

Or perhaps they're banking on people falling in love with the yellow leather trim...

You don't think that they could/would design the lenses with the rear of the lens 'quite' recessed into the camera mount?

I heard that Pentax will announce more pan cake lens.
Photo Rumors

Use same K-5 sensor
500g
NO EVF

I don't know how they will going to make a K-mount mirroless smaller.