[blinxdk]

Hehe babelfish. "intoxication poverty" (noise)

[Olivier]

Almost OFFICIAL
Samsungs neuer Bildsensor: CMOS, APS-C, 14 MP | photoscala

Highspeed and performance - powered by Samsung“: Apart from extremely small energy consumption is characterised the new sensor from Samsung development lab by extreme speed and a high sensitivity clearance.
Also in things intoxication poverty sets the image converter new yardsticks - and even with the highest sensitivity of ISO the 1600. A new Highspeed Bildprozessor (likewise from Samsung development) ensures for the fact that by the sensor supplied the raw data are prepared fast and with maximum quality

Samsung later corrected the press release to report a maximum sensitivity of ISO 3200.

[mawz]

Umm, the D300 only has an effective 320,000 pixels on a 3.0" screen.

Oh and the D300 doesn't do what this screen will do

Yes, and a 230k screen is still only 76,800 pixels when counted the same way as you are getting 320,000 pixels for the D300. D300/A700 is 640x480, 230k screens are 320x240. Kindly do the math.

[Gus]

I'd much prefer a more effective live view mode than a dramatic increase in the LCD's resolution.

I've got the Nikon D3 at the office and though its LCD is beautiful, it's way too many pixels on a 3" screen, more of a marketing gimmick than a useful feature in my opinion . Just think that today's 720p 40" to 50" HDTVs run at a slightly higher resolution. Granted that's not really comparable, but you get the picture (pun intended).

Besides, seeing the way live view is implemented on the D3, I hardly think we'll use it, if ever.

[mawz]

I'd much prefer a more effective live view mode than a dramatic increase in the LCD's resolution.

I've got the Nikon D3 at the office and though its LCD is beautiful, it's way too many pixels on a 3" screen, more of a marketing gimmick than a useful feature in my opinion . Just think that today's 720p 40" to 50" HDTVs run at a slightly higher resolution. Granted that's not really comparable, but you get the picture (pun intended).

Besides, seeing the way live view is implemented on the D3, I hardly think we'll use it, if ever.

Try using it for live view for macro at 5x magnification. Bloody incredible. It's like having a 5x magnifying viewfinder for your LX. WAY better than the chintzy angle-finders we're stuck with these days.

Or use it to confirm critical focus. This can be done at 6x-7x magnification (1 pixel per sensor pixel at 6.7x on the D300 or A700, haven't done the math for the D3). You simply can't do that accurately on a 230k screen, especially not a 3" like the 40D's.

It's not all that big a deal for viewing the full image, but for the two uses I note above, it's a HUGE improvement over 230k screens.

[Mef]

I don't get the point about the 3" screen. I would much more enjoy a reliable, trusty little screen rather than a big but deceiving screen.

There is something to re-invent here (= the use), making them bigger does not change anything.

[Gus]

Mef, actually having a bigger screen is not bad at all (as long as it doesn't bulk up the body unnecessarily). Ever tried the 2" 130K pixel variety (think D1/x)? Those were almost useless.

Mawz, I can see how that can be useful, but I still feel the pixel pitch is way too small (although I certainly will be giving it a try).

[mawz]

I don't get the point about the 3" screen. I would much more enjoy a reliable, trusty little screen rather than a big but deceiving screen.

There is something to re-invent here (= the use), making them bigger does not change anything.

The issue is the smaller screens aren't trusty and larger isn't necessarily better. It's the extra resolution of the 640x480 3" screens in the D3/D300 & A700 that are the real advantage, providing enough resolution to reliably confirm critical focus when magnified. You can't reliably do this on the 320x240 screens, they typically can't magnify enough.

[mawz]

Mef, actually having a bigger screen is not bad at all (as long as it doesn't bulk up the body unnecessarily). Ever tried the 2" 130K pixel variety (think D1/x)? Those were almost useless.

Mawz, I can see how that can be useful, but I still feel the pixel pitch is way too small (although I certainly will be giving it a try).

Try one of the Canon's with the 3" 230K screen and compare them. You can practically see individual sub-pixels on the crappy Canon screens. 2.5" seems to be the sweet spot for 230k screens.

[Tom M]

I've never had an issue with the current screen on the K10D - How good does it have to be for scrolling menus? If I can read the letters it's good enough.. As far as viewing the images, well, I have mine set to a default zoom so that if I feel like chimping the image is already zoomed in as soon as it's displayed so I can check sharpness.

F the LiveView, give me a super large and bright viewfinder please!! And I want a built-in curtain in the viewfinder so I don't have to use that plastic cover on long exposures. I know it's how it's been done for ever but, I'd like an integrated solution.

[codiac2600]

The reason for wanting a higher pixel count on the screen is because of live view. When you magnify inwards you'll surpass the density of the rear LCD screen and the image will look very pixelated.

This 2.7" is of high resolution and should do fine with magnification seeing as it's pixel density is around 196,000 pixels per inch while the A700 3.0" screen is about 230,000 pixels per inch.

[Arbalist]

Oh and the D300 doesn't do what this screen will do

A removable wireless screen is a pretty neat trick but needs to have a good resolution for liveview focusing as noted.

[mawz]

The reason for wanting a higher pixel count on the screen is because of live view. When you magnify inwards you'll surpass the density of the rear LCD screen and the image will look very pixelated.

This 2.7" is of high resolution and should do fine with magnification seeing as it's pixel density is around 196,000 pixels per inch while the A700 3.0" screen is about 230,000 pixels per inch.

You really need to check that math again. Neither screen is anywhere near close to that density. remember that the 3" high-rez screens are only 640 pixels across (1920 sub-pixels) No way you can get those pixel densities you quote with those real-world specs.

The 320x240 230k screens have half as many pixels in each linear direction. If the K20D has the leaked rear display it's going to have a pixel density under 160ppi or 480 sub pixels per inch, or slightly more than half the 3" 922k display (Half the linear resolution at a smaller display size gives a higher pixel density).

[blinxdk]

I don't really care that much about live view or lcd size, I've been happy with the lcd on my K100D and have no real use for live view. The reason I sold my K100D in anticipation of the new camera was in the hope that it would have better AF and larger buffer. If it can do that, I'll be happy

[mawz]

I don't really care that much about live view or lcd size, I've been happy with the lcd on my K100D and have no real use for live view. The reason I sold my K100D in anticipation of the new camera was in the hope that it would have better AF and larger buffer. If it can do that, I'll be happy

The K10D already does that (Better AF, although more in the more powerful AF motor than anything else and a larger buffer). I don't expect a huge AF improvement in the K200D, more likely better algorithms with the same sensor and motor. I am expecting a 6 or so RAW buffer in the K200D (the K100D's biggest weakness was the small buffer, especially when the D40 offered 9 RAWs and the A100 6-9 RAWs depending on the card used).

Expect the K20D to have a much larger buffer and noticeably better AF than the K100D.