[JPT]

- it's not new sensor.
- it's the same PRIME M just with a small tweaks for video.
- Why do you call it new? SR system is the same.
- It's not be plus or minus.
- It's not be plus or minus.

The point is that these things are different from the K-500, so the word "identical" is completely wrong. Now, whether you think these differences are preferable or significant is your call, but the cameras certainly have significant differences.

Just to comment on two of your points, the CDAF on the K-S1 is a lot faster, which indicates that the processor is faster. Also the SR on the K-5 was superior to the K-50, but still not good enough to do the AA filter function that the K-S1 can do. Therefore the K-S1 must have an upgraded SR system.

[Kunzite]

On the Imaging Resource interview, Ricoh Imaging said that the AA filter simulator needs a different SR system - different hardware; because of that it cannot be added via firmware upgrade. We can be sure it's different (an adaptation of the K-3's SR system, instead of the K-50/K-5 etc. ones).

[clackers]

- it's not new sensor.

K-500 = 16Mp sensor
K-S1 = 20Mp

[ogl]

K-500 = 16Mp sensor
K-S1 = 20Mp

It's SONY sensor which already used in several cameras before. I don't mean K-500 at all.

[ogl]

On the Imaging Resource interview, Ricoh Imaging said that the AA filter simulator needs a different SR system - different hardware; because of that it cannot be added via firmware upgrade. We can be sure it's different (an adaptation of the K-3's SR system, instead of the K-50/K-5 etc. ones).

Wait the technical explanation from you about difference of new SR system from old one for lens stabilization.
Dо you really think that it works in another way for making lens stabilized?

[Kunzite]

The technical difference can be superficially explained as "a separate controller dedicated just to shake reduction" and "stronger actuators".

[GearHead]

Isn't today the release date for the k-S1? Not much talk about it...

[clackers]

It's SONY sensor which already used in several cameras before. I don't mean K-500 at all.

We know that. Didn't you see when JPT said: "A new sensor. On Sony cameras, that sensor is no better, but also no worse than the 16mp one that preceded it. It is definitely a newer model, though."?

And we're talking about the K-500, because that's the comparison Buckaroo was making.

I think you answered without reading other people's posts!

[JPT]

Isn't today the release date for the k-S1? Not much talk about it...

It's been on sale since last Friday in Japan. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much written about it in English yet.

[Buckaroo50]

Smaller, wifi capability and no AA filter.

Smaller isn't always better, some may not care about wifi or AA filers at double the money. Will the AA filter do better on the K-S1 or will the K-50/500 do better with a better lens to the point that both have an investment of equal expense... With $399 price of the K-500 (with a 18-55mm) that still leaves $400 to spend on another lens... I guess each person has to weight the differences and see what is right for them... For me I would pass on the wifi and AA filter and opt for a better lens on the K-500 - A side note - the K-500 pixel size is 22.9um(squared) vs 17.7um(squared)... Does a person really need 20 megapixels or even 16 megapixels... Printing at professional quality (300dpi) it only takes 7 megapixels for an 8x10 - what happens to the other megapixels (are they thrown out or averaged in) in either case there is degradation with the sharpness, contrast and even color because the resolution is going to be compromised in order to make it fit... Here is an exercise that is simple to do and will raise some questions... Take a picture of some telephone wires at full resolution and then view them on the computer the telephone wires look like a ripsaw blade until you view at 100%... Would you get the same results if you printed the picture at less than full size? And if you shrink the picture down what happens to the detail, sharpness, contrast, colors etc.. Some long time professionals seem to agree that pixel size is more important than pixel count but is overlooked by many consumers... I happen to agree... I have another question - why would a person need an AA filter is they are getting the results without one? And another point I would like to make is if the K-S1 has a faster processor then why does the K-500 still shoot at a faster frame rate (6 vs 5.4)... Here is a link for your viewing pleasure - use your own deductions: Specifications - Pentax K-500 vs Pentax K-S1

[JPT]

Smaller isn't always better, some may not care about wifi or AA filers at double the money. Will the AA filter do better on the K-S1 or will the K-50/500 do better with a better lens to the point that both have an investment of equal expense... With $399 price of the K-500 (with a 18-55mm) that still leaves $400 to spend on another lens... I guess each person has to weight the differences and see what is right for them... For me I would pass on the wifi and AA filter and opt for a better lens on the K-500 - A side note - the K-500 pixel size is 22.9um(squared) vs 17.7um(squared)... Does a person really need 20 megapixels or even 16 megapixels... Printing at professional quality (300dpi) it only takes 7 megapixels for an 8x10 - what happens to the other megapixels (are they thrown out or averaged in) in either case there is degradation with the sharpness, contrast and even color because the resolution is going to be compromised in order to make it fit... Here is an exercise that is simple to do and will raise some questions... Take a picture of some telephone wires at full resolution and then view them on the computer the telephone wires look like a ripsaw blade until you view at 100%... Would you get the same results if you printed the picture at less than full size? And if you shrink the picture down what happens to the detail, sharpness, contrast, colors etc.. Some long time professionals seem to agree that pixel size is more important than pixel count but is overlooked by many consumers... I happen to agree... I have another question - why would a person need an AA filter is they are getting the results without one? And another point I would like to make is if the K-S1 has a faster processor then why does the K-500 still shoot at a faster frame rate (6 vs 5.4)... Here is a link for your viewing pleasure - use your own deductions: Specifications - Pentax K-500 vs Pentax K-S1

I think you have some misconceptions about pixel size (not directly comparable across different generations of technology), printing (good printers have very high DPI and can handle all the pixels you can throw at them) and the processor (the shutter is more likely to be the limiting factor for the burst rate).

But the main point I want to make is that last year's state-of-the-art is this year's bargain, just like this year's state-of the art will be next year's bargain. Rewind to last summer and the K-50/K-500 had just come out, offering nothing more than the K-30 but costing significantly more. In that case you really could say the tech was the same as the old model.

I think the other thing is that the K-S1 is not part of the mainstream camera line-up (see the PF Photokina interview). Its capabilities are slanted towards a particular type of user who wants something small. It compromises by having quite modest specs in some areas (AF, burst rate) but has surprisingly high-end features in other areas (viewfinder, AA simulator). Imagine a person who wants to use the 21/40/70 limiteds as a kit. This camera is ideal for that user, but certainly not for everyone.

[clackers]

Smaller isn't always better, some may not care about wifi or AA filers at double the money.

You seem confused, Buckaroo.

You have gone from saying that they are "basically identical" to conceding they're not, just that the new features are not your cup of tea.

[mecrox]

I think you have some misconceptions about pixel size (not directly comparable across different generations of technology), printing (good printers have very high DPI and can handle all the pixels you can throw at them) and the processor (the shutter is more likely to be the limiting factor for the burst rate).

But the main point I want to make is that last year's state-of-the-art is this year's bargain, just like this year's state-of the art will be next year's bargain. Rewind to last summer and the K-50/K-500 had just come out, offering nothing more than the K-30 but costing significantly more. In that case you really could say the tech was the same as the old model.

I think the other thing is that the K-S1 is not part of the mainstream camera line-up (see the PF Photokina interview). Its capabilities are slanted towards a particular type of user who wants something small. It compromises by having quite modest specs in some areas (AF, burst rate) but has surprisingly high-end features in other areas (viewfinder, AA simulator). Imagine a person who wants to use the 21/40/70 limiteds as a kit. This camera is ideal for that user, but certainly not for everyone.

As a travel camera for the Limited prime lenses this could be a cracker- I have the lenses and use them all the time. Too costly at the mo, however. Thirty per cent less and I would very likely go for it. But right now, it looks priced one level above what it's really worth, imho. We'll see. I'm going for a winter break for which the K-S1 would be ideal next Feb. Hmmn.

[Buckaroo50]

You seem confused, Buckaroo.

You have gone from saying that they are "basically identical" to conceding they're not, just that the new features are not your cup of tea.

I said that they were basically the same with a few exceptions one being that the pixel count was higher but the pixel size was smaller in the K-S1. If they were identical then I guess that they would call the K-S1 a K-500.
A Camaro may share the same driveline (engine, transmission, etc) as a corvette with a few exceptions body style etc... Which in some respects make the Camaro and Corvette basically the same with respects to what makes it go down the road - engine etc... Please, don't put words in my mouth or twist what I do say.

[Buckaroo50]

I think you have some misconceptions about pixel size (not directly comparable across different generations of technology), printing (good printers have very high DPI and can handle all the pixels you can throw at them) and the processor (the shutter is more likely to be the limiting factor for the burst rate).

But the main point I want to make is that last year's state-of-the-art is this year's bargain, just like this year's state-of the art will be next year's bargain. Rewind to last summer and the K-50/K-500 had just come out, offering nothing more than the K-30 but costing significantly more. In that case you really could say the tech was the same as the old model.

I think the other thing is that the K-S1 is not part of the mainstream camera line-up (see the PF Photokina interview). Its capabilities are slanted towards a particular type of user who wants something small. It compromises by having quite modest specs in some areas (AF, burst rate) but has surprisingly high-end features in other areas (viewfinder, AA simulator). Imagine a person who wants to use the 21/40/70 limiteds as a kit. This camera is ideal for that user, but certainly not for everyone.

No I do not have any misconceptions about pixel size. I am not an expert but I do read what experts have to say. If pixel size was not a factor then I guess all full frame cameras would have the same pixel size as a point and shoot. What can hold more a 5 gallon pail or a 50 gallon barrel. Larger pixels can obtain more data to make the processing more accurate.

Printing: Since 300dpi is considered professional quality and your human eye can't detect that fine detail and actually begins to fall off around 150dpi that most people with the naked eye can't tell the difference between 150dpi and 300dpi what use is it to print at 600, 1200 etc when you can't even see the detail without a magnifying glass. Most computer screens have 100-125dpi (there are exceptions). So if things look great on your computer then printing at 300dpi are going to have 3 more times detail than what you see on your computer.

We know that companies have to stay in business and many times they will market things that really are insignificant and make a big deal out of it and tell you this is what you need because they rely on this marketing for the purpose of you selling last years technology and running out and buying today's latest and greatest. Whether you need it or not. Sony has an A57 which was replaced by the A58, in my opinion they went backwards and the A57 in my opinion is a better camera. Canon did the same thing with their superzoom SX50. Canon said look a 1000mm zoom, you need this. The SX40 having 840mm is a better lens with the respect that it is f2.7 vs f3.5 for the SX50. Which would you rather have - I prefer the f2.7 lens over the 1000mm... Then they said "Oh look you can now shoot RAW too". All camera's shoot a raw picture and then it is converted. Why didn't they program the SX40 to save a RAW image - well that was for the next latest and greatest. But the SX40 can save a RAW file if you download a free chdk file which allows you to save RAW and opens many other features not found coming from the factory (of which they could have if they wanted too)... But want to only give you certain things so that they can next year turn some of those features on and say "Hey look here, you need this. Sell your camera and get this new latest and greatest one"...

If you recall I did say that the K-S1 fills a market share and it will sell and that the individual will have to decide for themselves if the K-S1 was worth the extra bucks or would a K-50/K500 work for them.. It is their money and they can buy what they want. I also said that if a person were to consider the K-S1 would it be worth the road trip to go all the way to the K-3. Everyone will buy what they want for their own reasons and if everyone felt the same way then there would only be one camera company and one camera. And I was also trying to point out the marketing aspect that through marketing they will try to convince you that you need this latest and greatest - for the sole purpose of getting your money (which they do need in order to stay in business). Are you getting your moneys worth and do you really need what they are marketing. That is a decision only you can make.

I was pointing out what I was aware of and sharing that. If you agree that is fine, if you don't it doesn't matter to me. To make a statement (that I have a misconception) to attack me personally - well I understand that level of discussion too. The facts are - I don't have a misconception about pixel size and I guess from that standpoint you opened your own mouth and stuck your own foot in it... And I will leave it at that...