[clackers]

So does Nikon, considering their flagship uses a 16MP sensor... An absolutely amazing 16MP sensor, is probably better put...

Well, the Canon 1D also only offers 18Mp, and for similar reasons to the D4 you're talking about - high frame rates for sports shooters.

Landscapes value different specifications - the 645Z is to drool for! :-)

[WPRESTO]

There is potential for endless debate over pixel density, although the pixel race seems to be grinding to a halt at 24mp for APS-C and 36mp for FF. At the low end, lower noise and high frame rates are the obvious gains. At the high end, what is the reasonable ceiling? There is a point at which pixel density exceeds lens resolution, that is, there is no gain in detail capture because available lenses cannot resolve more detail*. There is also the matter of how the captured image is used. If it is displayed or viewed electronically, on a screen or projected, then the available projector/screen resolution is below 2000 along the greatest length and an image file that has more than that is essentially carrying detail that cannot be displayed. If a print is made, the question is: how big? Do images recorded with a 24mp APS-C sensor show more perceivable detail in a print than an image recorded by a 20mp or even 16mp sensor? Consider the "ideal" distance for viewing a print. 16X20 is large for hanging on the wall, 20X24 is huge and intended to be viewed from perhaps 5 to 6 feet back. What is more important: the entire image as conceived and recorded by the photographer, or the tiny details discovered by putting your face up to the print and whipping out a magnifying glass? Oil paintings are meant to be viewed from a distance, and fall apart into brush strokes when viewed close. On the other hand, some old images made with large format view cameras (at least 4X5 and more likely 11X14), especially of urban settings, are startling and fascinating precisely because of the deep detail they record.

There is little doubt that some will agree, others hotly dispute these comments.

*I suspect that 24mp APS-C sensors are capable of recording the maximum detail that can be transmitted by essentially any/all zoom lenses, and also the vast majority of SFL lenses. Making use of greater pixel density would require careful selection of SFL lenses AND always using those lenses at their optimum f-stop.

[ogl]

So can you imagine the news for the camera global market if Pentax comes at CP+ with:

- FF body
.

No FF camera. new BSI-CMOS APS-C sensor 16-bit with higher than 24 MP - my guess.

[HYS]

No FF camera. new BSI-CMOS APS-C sensor 16-bit with higher than 24 MP - my guess.

Good for APS-C. If so. But why not FF?

[WPRESTO]

Good for APS-C. If so. But why not FF?

My take, to repeat, Pentax has too much invested in lenses for APS-C, and too few lens offerings for FF. Realistically the only sensible way for them to go FF would be: 1) to have a very high pixel count sensor with an internal self-cropping mechanism so that APS-C lenses could be used with no loss of IQ compared to the K3; 2) reconfigure all their 645 AF lenses to fit a FF K mount, but I doubt these would provide the kind of IQ expected for a FF 35mm equivalent image.

I'll settle for an APS-C body with 1) a new sensor that provides lower noise at high ISO; 2) a tilt/swivel screen. Other improvements would be welcome, but not absolutely necessary. I doubt that more than 24mp will improve detail recording or cropping potential in images taken with anything other than my best macros (Tokina 90mm f2.5; Voigtlander 125mm f2.5; Pentax 200mm f4.0).

[cfraz]

My take, to repeat, Pentax has too much invested in lenses for APS-C, and too few lens offerings for FF. Realistically the only sensible way for them to go FF would be: 1) to have a very high pixel count sensor with an internal self-cropping mechanism so that APS-C lenses could be used with no loss of IQ compared to the K3; 2) reconfigure all their 645 AF lenses to fit a FF K mount, but I doubt these would provide the kind of IQ expected for a FF 35mm equivalent image.

What do think those two big lenses shown under glass are for?

[Flugelbinder]

...Well, the Canon 1D also only offers 18Mp, and for similar reasons to the D4 you're talking about - high frame rates for sports shooters...

Actually, my frame of reference is wedding and portraiture, and I know for a fact, that many (again) top photographers using Nikon, especially on the wedding business, are trading the 'old' D3s for the D4s. Sometimes higher resolution (or high frame rates) isn't what one looks for in a sensor, rather high ISO noise handling... As said before many times, 16mp is more than enough for amazing 8x10 (and a bit bigger) prints, so...

[WPRESTO]

What do think those two big lenses shown under glass are for?

I suspect that: 1) one is an APS-C zoom that goes to 400mm or more, which necessitates large diameter because the aperture must be kept at least f6.3, better f5.6; 2) the other is a mid range APS-C tele zoom, to a maximum of 150~200mm, that maintains f2.8 throughout. The latter is perhaps a longer range replacement for the 50-135mm, which is an excellent lens, but were it 50~150mm, 180mm, or even 200mm it would have much wider appeal. I would expect it to start @ 50mm & stop @ 150mm, like the Sigma that was discontinued in K-mount, because Pentax already has an excellent and popular 60~250mm, and I'm not sure they'd introduce a competitor for Tamron & Sigma 70~200 f2.8 optics.

[6BQ5]

No FF camera. new BSI-CMOS APS-C sensor 16-bit with higher than 24 MP - my guess.

I'll add my vote to yours!

[ogl]

What do think those two big lenses shown under glass are for?

FF - maybe, but not at CP+2015 IMO

[cfraz]

I suspect that: 1) one is an ASP-C zoom that goes to 400mm or more, which necessitates large diameter because the aperture must be kept at least f6.3, better f5.6; 2) the other is a mid range ASP-C tele zoom, to a maximum of 150~200mm, that maintains f2.8 throughout. The latter is perhaps a longer range replacement for the 50-135mm, which is an excellent lens, but were it 50~150mm, 180mm, or even 200mm it would have much wider appeal. I would expect it to start @ 50mm & stop @ 150mm, like the Sigma that was discontinued in K-mount, because Pentax already has an excellent and popular 60~250mm, and I'm not sure they'd introduce a competitor for Tamron & Sigma 70~200 f2.8 optics.

Thanks. You see much detail in those tea leaves.

[WPRESTO]

Thanks. You see much detail in those tea leaves.

Of course! What's the use of speculating if you don't use imagination? A general rule: always base the most outlandish theory where there is the least possible evidence. Works wonderfully for ancient aliens, UFO advocates, and sasquatch hunters. Where there's only trace evidence, no one can prove you wrong, and if eventually you're proven right, everyone thinks you're a genius rather than a vacuous dreamer. If you're proven wrong, nobody remembers what you said. By the way, that rule also applies in my science (dinosaurs) and is one of the reasons I quit research. People with imaginations who generate ideas are lauded, but ideas are cheap - it's the facts that are hard to get.

[Flugelbinder]

...Of course! What's the use of speculating if you don't use imagination? A general rule: always base the most outlandish theory where there is the least possible evidence. Works wonderfully for ancient aliens, UFO advocates...

This might deserve a thread of its own...

[reh321]

What do think those two big lenses shown under glass are for?

Eliciting attention and lots of discussion.

(it is working)

(good marketing!!)

[normhead]

In the Pentax world, new lenses are a big deal.... they say, loud and clear...

"Rumours of our impending death have been greatly exaggerated."

and

"Yes we really do have a few lens designers on staff."

I don't know how this is going to be spun into "Pentax is doomed", but I'm sure someone will figure it out.