Originally posted by JPT 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...