Originally posted by d.bradley So you're saying that the sensor crop would be higher ISO than the Canon? I mean using a 12mp crop from the middle of a 14.6mp sensor would not change any of the imaging characteristics of the sensor. It would be the same as cropping the image in photoshop. As mentioned previously, Canon crippled some of their DSLR's in firmware back in the day...and sony sold a whole lineup of camcorders with the same guts, but different bodies and firmware. People hacked both
If pentax were to cripple a camera, I think they'd just set the output from the full 14.6 mp sensor to 12mp. Re-sample the image in-camera, not crop the sensor. That way you're not confusing buyers with different crop factors (effective focal lengths), viewfinders, etc etc. That being said, the 'crippled electronics' strategy has been used in the past, but I honestly don't think it's a great idea.
I didn't mean anything physically changed with the sensor. My whole argument is to reduce cost across the product range by manufacturing the same sensor for all and "chip binning it" like speeds of processors. I realize now that FLM would change to more of a canonish 1,6 (after you bring it to discussion of course
). But there could be some bonuses too like using more of the center for a DA lens and reduce a bit of vignette and maybe more resolution for the lesser lenses (cost wise).
After all is a business matter and I am thinking Pentax will be able to make a proper decision (without my help anyway!!). All I wanted to say is that a potential K300D for early next year with a 12 Mp res sensor with the presumed performance and IQ of that in K20D would make a lot of sense. Maybe reduce the max ISO to 3200 why not when C and N have a not too clean ISO 1600?! And by then maybe a K30D will bring improvements to separate more the two and justify the price differential and hopefully a K1D with even more pro features. But all 3based on the same sensor mass produced.
My 2 cents.
Radu