[Pål Jensen]

Pentax will have a hard time selling lots of one FF body let alone two...
I wouldn't expect another FF body until the first one is due for replacement....

[Wired]

I have just returned from testing the Sony A7R II. I also tested the Nikon D810 about a year ago.

I must say, if either of these sensors shows up in the full-frame Pentax, you/we are in for a real treat. A "Canon-users-will-cry-and-despair" kind of treat. Both sensors are phenomenal.

I'd be even more ecstatic if, since Pentax seems to be interested in astrophotography too, they offered an "A" version like the D810A that had it's sensor tweaked for incredible night photography. That would be a dream come true.

But really, all they need to do is flip a coin on those two FF sensors, and worry about nailing good autofocus. Then they have a winner. The Nikon D810 isn't "magic" at autofocus, and neither is the Sony A7R mkII, but they're both pretty close.

36 still gives you 15mp at crop. Thats what I use during fashion week on my D800/D810 so I can get a bit more "reach" and run the buffer a bit hotter. 15mp is more than enough.

at what point is too much? 36mp is hard to tame. I think many Pentaxians will meet the same struggles I did when I first picked up a D800 in which every slight hand movement or flaw in your shooting technique is amplified. I doubt share reduction will hide it all. Then there is the pain and suffering you will inflict on hard drives and your processor of your computer. Don't be asking and glamouring for 40+ mp if your not willing to give them a solid support net.

In my opinion, 80% of photographers (Pentaxians, Canonians, Nikonites, Sonites, etc) don't need more than 16mp. Look at the m4/3 and Fuji cameras, they seem to be very content with 16mp. Same with cameras like the D4s and 1Dx...

[thibs]

Pentax will have a hard time selling lots of one FF body let alone two...
I wouldn't expect another FF body until the first one is due for replacement....

Depends on price. Maybe they won't need another FF soon. Maybe the gap k3 <-> FF will be too big which would tend to justify a second body. Cheap FF from others might put pressure too. Maybe not.

[Matthew Saville]

36 still gives you 15mp at crop. Thats what I use during fashion week on my D800/D810 so I can get a bit more "reach" and run the buffer a bit hotter. 15mp is more than enough.

at what point is too much? 36mp is hard to tame. I think many Pentaxians will meet the same struggles I did when I first picked up a D800 in which every slight hand movement or flaw in your shooting technique is amplified. I doubt share reduction will hide it all. Then there is the pain and suffering you will inflict on hard drives and your processor of your computer. Don't be asking and glamouring for 40+ mp if your not willing to give them a solid support net.

In my opinion, 80% of photographers (Pentaxians, Canonians, Nikonites, Sonites, etc) don't need more than 16mp. Look at the m4/3 and Fuji cameras, they seem to be very content with 16mp. Same with cameras like the D4s and 1Dx...

Keep in mind that RAW compression options are still, well, options. Sony's A7R mk2 delivers 42 MP files that are actually just ~40 MB, and they do it quite well with 99% of shooting conditions not showing any quality degradation. And for that 1% all they have to do is offer 14-bit lossless RAW and they're golden. That's what Nikon does, but folks are usually too snooty to dare trying their D800 in 12-bit compressed NEF. I've been doing it for years on all my Nikons and it works great, ~1 MB per MP; almost as compact as a super-fine JPG file!

---------- Post added 08-12-15 at 10:02 AM ----------

Two models expensive/cheaper at launch (or nearby) has precedents in recent FF camera history:
Nikon D3 (expensive, 12MP), then 12 months later D700 (cheaper, 12MP); Nikon D800 (36MP, expensive), then 6 months later D600 (24MP, much cheaper); Sony A7r (36MP, expensive), and launched the same day Sony A7 (24MP, cheaper). It can happen, and it has some marketing advantages. Plus the hard work that goes into building the expensive body makes making the cheaper body much easier.

Again, I don't think this will be Pentax' philosophy. It's true that others have done this, knowing full well that they'd make more $$$ just by spending more $$$, but I don't think Pentax is big enough to just rattle off multiple bodies and "let us pick"... They probably know they have one shot at doing this right the first time, for as many buyers as possible, and they'll only get to make a 2nd FX if the 1st one is a huge hit.

---------- Post added 08-12-15 at 10:14 AM ----------

In my opinion, 80% of photographers (Pentaxians, Canonians, Nikonites, Sonites, etc) don't need more than 16mp. Look at the m4/3 and Fuji cameras, they seem to be very content with 16mp. Same with cameras like the D4s and 1Dx...

16 MP is great for almost everything, indeed. I could go my entire wedding & portrait career with 16 MP probably, as long as I have sharp lenses. Heck, I built my career with 6 and 12 MP cameras!

Having said that, keep in mind that Pentax is also the company offering the 645 digital medium format system, an arena where sheer resolution is one of the main factors in buying. You wouldn't buy a 16 MP 645s, would you?

I think that Pentax knows they must "bridge the gap" with a full-frame 35mm digital sensor. If 1.5x crop is "good enough" at 16-24 MP, full-frame's main purpose is not just to offer better high ISO and more shallow DOF, but to chase the resolving power of MF as well.

Of course that's just my opinion.

What is NOT opinion, by the way, is the fact that megapixels are no longer "harming" a sensor's performance by a noteworthy amount. The 42 megapixel Sony A7R mk2 is proving this with it's ability to perform almost on par with the 12 megapixel A7S in low light. It requires full sensor readout to get there, (as opposed to pixel binning?) but it's possible with the right chips and software speed.

TLDR; don't worry about megapixels too much. Worry about the execution of the finer details, such as will they offer 12-bit lossy compression, or mRAW, or full sensor readout for high ISO video. And of course, will the sensor be BSI or not...

[Wired]

I'm just gonna focus on my lighting.

[Rondec]

There isn't much difference between 36 megapixels and 41 megapixels -- not in the real world. My understanding of the 41 megapixel sensor was that it would give faster read out than the 36 megapixel sensor, but Falconeye has said that it is not going to have as good dynamic range at low iso.

[Matthew Saville]

There isn't much difference between 36 megapixels and 41 megapixels -- not in the real world. My understanding of the 41 megapixel sensor was that it would give faster read out than the 36 megapixel sensor, but Falconeye has said that it is not going to have as good dynamic range at low iso.

Indeed, both in resolving power and in filesize, 36 and 41/42 are rather interchangeable.

The real difference will be in whether or not a 12-bit compressed RAW file format is offered, which IMO is in fact a huge necessity for such file sizes, for anyone who shoots high-volume things like weddings or timelapses. No reason to burn through 2X the memory cards and hard drive space and computer CPU power if you're just doing minimal batch processing, but still don't want to make the huge sacrifice that is JPG.

The Sony 42 MP sensor does have faster readout, but there's no indication that this directly causes worse DR; that could simply be a result of other factors.

And either way, the dynamic range on both the D810 and the A7R mk2 is absolutely impressive and worth investing in, regardless of who is top dog in lab tests. And considering how much Pentax' 16 and 24 MP 1.5x sensors have closely matched their Nikon competition in the dynamic range department, I don't think we'll have any unpleasant surprises from a full-frame Pentax, regardless of what sensor they choose. There's only a 0.5% chance of some horrible banding issue, and even then that'd only show up in crazy +5 EV pushes...

Just my opinion of course.

[IchabodCrane]

Indeed, both in resolving power and in filesize, 36 and 41/42 are rather interchangeable.

The real difference will be in whether or not a 12-bit compressed RAW file format is offered, which IMO is in fact a huge necessity for such file sizes, for anyone who shoots high-volume things like weddings or timelapses. No reason to burn through 2X the memory cards and hard drive space and computer CPU power if you're just doing minimal batch processing, but still don't want to make the huge sacrifice that is JPG.

The Sony 42 MP sensor does have faster readout, but there's no indication that this directly causes worse DR; that could simply be a result of other factors.

And either way, the dynamic range on both the D810 and the A7R mk2 is absolutely impressive and worth investing in, regardless of who is top dog in lab tests. And considering how much Pentax' 16 and 24 MP 1.5x sensors have closely matched their Nikon competition in the dynamic range department, I don't think we'll have any unpleasant surprises from a full-frame Pentax, regardless of what sensor they choose. There's only a 0.5% chance of some horrible banding issue, and even then that'd only show up in crazy +5 EV pushes...

Just my opinion of course.

A good approach is what Nikon has in the D810 -- a 16 MP output option.

[Matthew Saville]

A good approach is what Nikon has in the D810 -- a 16 MP output option.

Not sure which mode you're referring to...

Nikon's 16 MP RAW output is in DX crop mode only, and while highly useful, is not always the best option.

Nikon did introduce a 10 MP full-frame RAW output in the D810 as well, however it is not both 12-bit and compressed RAW, but 12-bit uncompressed, which results in a file the same exact size as a 36 megapixel 12-bit lossy compressed file. If that weren't bad enough, the images (at my last testing) were highly un-processable in Adobe Lightroom, to the point that you would be far better off shooting 12-bit compressed full-frame.

So, at the end of the day, it is indeed RAW compression that makes the best difference, not actual pixel dimensions.

=Matt=

[IchabodCrane]

Not sure which mode you're referring to...

Nikon's 16 MP RAW output is in DX crop mode only, and while highly useful, is not always the best option.

Nikon did introduce a 10 MP full-frame RAW output in the D810 as well, however it is not both 12-bit and compressed RAW, but 12-bit uncompressed, which results in a file the same exact size as a 36 megapixel 12-bit lossy compressed file. If that weren't bad enough, the images (at my last testing) were highly un-processable in Adobe Lightroom, to the point that you would be far better off shooting 12-bit compressed full-frame.

So, at the end of the day, it is indeed RAW compression that makes the best difference, not actual pixel dimensions.

=Matt=

I misspoke or mistyped. The D810 has a reduced resolution 12-bit uncompressed file option with an 9 MP output. The resolution is exactly half of normal hence the 1/4 of 36 MP pixel count.

[MD Optofonik]

Pentax made headlines in the professional world with medium format. They got the attention of the pros and I think a professional FF was what it was always going to be about; elite, high end, no BS, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes and whining rabble who can't afford state of the art full frame glory.

I, for one, welcome our elite Pentaxian overlords.

[Na Horuk]

Pentax made headlines in the professional world with medium format.

I find that Pentax is often mentioned favourably in magazines, not just for the medium format cameras. The problem is that in some areas, Pentax simply didn't compete, like with specialized lenses (tilt, shift, enlarger,..), flash system, pro service (repairs, rentals,..). I think finally this is changing, with the great new DFA lenses coming out, and the FF on the way.

I, for one, welcome our elite Pentaxian overlords.

I am all for it, as well

[Matthew Saville]

I misspoke or mistyped. The D810 has a reduced resolution 12-bit uncompressed file option with an 9 MP output. The resolution is exactly half of normal hence the 1/4 of 36 MP pixel count.

Okay you're right, 9 MP not 10 MP, but yup that's what I was talking about. The 9 MP files are the same filesize as a 12-bit compressed 36 MP file, and are only process-able in proprietary software. So, you're far better off just shooting full-res 12-bit compressed raw.

That is why I really hope that more companies catch on and offer multiple RAW options, instead of worrying about down-sized options like Canon's mRAW.

---------- Post added 08-13-15 at 12:40 PM ----------

I find that Pentax is often mentioned favourably in magazines, not just for the medium format cameras. The problem is that in some areas, Pentax simply didn't compete, like with specialized lenses (tilt, shift, enlarger,..), flash system, pro service (repairs, rentals,..). I think finally this is changing, with the great new DFA lenses coming out, and the FF on the way.

I am all for it, as well

This is Nikon's problem too in the video world. The sales of still photography cameras are plummeting apparently, even those still cameras that offer video recording options. Cameras that are more hybrid and universally usable are on the rise, in a big way. Nikon is having a really hard time getting traction in the video industry, and they're running out of time.

I hope that Pentax can well-round its system as quickly as possible, and develop cameras that are more "hybrid" and marketable, while still maintaining a separate line, or somehow integrating their design ethic into the future.

I personally hated it when Nikon re-arranged switches and buttons to accommodate video. But once they offered firmware updates that allowed me to re-customize the buttons to do things for still photography as well, I found that the progress made was actually so ground-breaking I couldn't go back to the older "sans video" bodies... Go figure!

[IchabodCrane]

Okay you're right, 9 MP not 10 MP, but yup that's what I was talking about. The 9 MP files are the same filesize as a 12-bit compressed 36 MP file, and are only process-able in proprietary software. So, you're far better off just shooting full-res 12-bit compressed raw.

That is why I really hope that more companies catch on and offer multiple RAW options, instead of worrying about down-sized options like Canon's mRAW.

Matthew, what you're essentially saying is a 9 MP uncompressed file is the same size as a 36 MP compressed file. I've never seen that kind of claim before. Instead, I think I've read you might get a 25% reduction in file size... but certainly not a 75% reduction.

[monochrome]

Most of you dont know much about the future, or how Ricoh is thinking. Some will be disappointed, some will be filled with joy. Cant please'ed all! Ricoh has finally turned the train called Pentax in the right direction. Rome wasn't build in day. But the future is extremely bright!

Take care. People here really got sick and tired of, "Be of Good Cheer, Pentaxians. Ricoh has a Plan, and you will be Happy!"