[biz-engineer]

Pentax doesn't make sensors. I have no idea what it would cost them to start their own fab and deliberately try to create a sensor that shoots great stills, but is completely incapable of video, but it seems like it would be more expensive than the route they have chosen to take.

I'm not sure if my answer is welcome here. But to the best of my knowledge , a custom sensor design and prototyping costs between $500K to $5Millions of development , depending on the level of reuse up to full customization (the fab itslef is out of the reach of Ricoh). So, better share the costs with others, via third party supplier specialized in image sensor design and manufacturing. That's what Ricoh, Nikon and other camera makers are doing.

I understand that a lot of photographers don't shoot video with their SLRs. I don't very often, although sometimes when I only have my SLR with me, I will shoot my kids doing something or something like that. But in general I get as good results from my cell phone. That doesn't mean that leaving video off wouldn't kill Pentax SLR sales.

I'm not sure if the sensor itself is the problem of video in Pentax cameras. If I understood correctly, recent Pentax cameras are capable of recording high quality video, but they are lacking features such as articulated display and continuous focus tracking of faces that facilitate video recording. So, I bet that Ricoh could easily correct this if they would decide to do so.

[Rondec]

I'm not sure if my answer is welcome here. But to the best of my knowledge , a custom sensor design and prototyping costs between $500K to $5Millions of development , depending on the level of reuse up to full customization (the fab itslef is out of the reach of Ricoh). So, better share the costs with others, via third party supplier specialized in image sensor design and manufacturing. That's what Ricoh, Nikon and other camera makers are doing.



I'm not sure if the sensor itself is the problem of video in Pentax cameras. If I understood correctly, recent Pentax cameras are capable of recording high quality video, but they are lacking features such as articulated display and continuous focus tracking of faces that facilitate video recording. So, I bet that Ricoh could easily correct this if they would decide to do so.

I am just saying that Norm's comment that still photo shooters are subsidizing video shooters is way off base.

[normhead]

Then why do all the sites that have comparison images looks so similar? Why do we have no clear cut examples? This is nonsense. You assume there are visible imperfections in the lens to be magnified. Wouldn't that be the first thing that would bet established in such a theory? If the visible imperfections round off to zero, then twice zero is zero. But I'm game....

Sometimes, I wonder if folks are just making stuff up, ... or just taken in by and repeating stuff other people made up. "It sounds logical, so, there fore I'll repeat it as fact."

Can you even tell which is which, forget about find lens imperfections in one, that have been magnified in the other?

K-3 or D610, tell us which is which and show us these imperfections.



Forgive my impatience, but I've heard this kind of hogwash repeated over and over for about 4 years now, it's getting old.

[Matthew Saville]

Then why do all the sites that have comparison images looks so similar? Why do we have no clear cut examples? This is nonsense. You assume there are visible imperfections in the lens to be magnified. Wouldn't that be the first thing that would bet established in such a theory? If the visible imperfections round off to zero, then twice zero is zero. But I'm game....

Sometimes, I wonder if folks are just making stuff up, ... or just taken in by and repeating stuff other people made up. "It sounds logical, so, there fore I'll repeat it as fact."

Can you even tell which is which, forget about find lens imperfections in one, that have been magnified in the other?

K-3 or D610, tell us which is which and show us these imperfections.

Forgive my impatience, but I've heard this kind of hogwash repeated over and over for about 4 years now, it's getting old.

Not sure which previous argument you're upset about here, since the discussion has veered towards video recently. Are you talking about the per-pixel resolving ability / quality of APS-C vs FX sensors?

I'd be the first to agree with you that a 24 MP 1.5x crop sensor is capable of delivering results almost completely identical to a 24 MP FX sensor. In fact I've done sample scenes with numerous different 24 MP sensors.

It does come down to lens quality quite a bit. A Rokinon 16mm f/2 on APS-C at its "sweet spot" aperture is BITINGLY sharp, especially when that APS-C sensor has no AA filter. It's eye-popping. I could pull up a few test shots with the K-3 and Rokinon 16mm f/2 if you'd like.

However, there's still a bit more per-pixel noise (even at a base ISO) in the crop-sensor file, this I've also noticed without question.

[normhead]

I Posted a couple of images for comparison above... so, you're saying has better base ISO than the other? That is base ISO, so I'm not seeing what you are talking about. I also find it very annoying when I post images to demonstrate my point, and people come back with an opinion. evidence on one hand, an opinion on the other? Is this "fair comment."We aren't playing in the same league here. If it's "without question". How hard can it be to show us?

IN the above images the K-3 image looks leaner and sharper.... according to everything you've stated, that shouldn't be possible. What's your explanation?

[bxf]

I Posted a couple of images for comparison above... so, you're saying has better base ISO than the other? That is base ISO, so I'm not seeing what you are talking about. I also find it very annoying when I post images to demonstrate my point, and people come back with an opinion. evidence on one hand, an opinion on the other? Is this "fair comment."We aren't playing in the same league here. If it's "without question". How hard can it be to show us?

IN the above images the K-3 image looks leaner and sharper.... according to everything you've stated, that shouldn't be possible. What's your explanation?

Hey Norm, I thought Matthew was essentially on your side

[normhead]

Hey Norm, I thought Matthew was essentially on your side

However, there's still a bit more per-pixel noise (even at a base ISO) in the crop-sensor file, this I've also noticed without question.

Not on my side, maybe on yours?
On the above images, I see the same noise and a sharper image from the crop sensor file.

[Jasvox]

Anyone know the US retail price expected for this body. Hopefully it is a reasonable one considering that Pentax is not breaking any new ground by putting a full frame sensor into a camera body...it been done ad-nauseam buy everyone and their brother. If it is positioned well ,then I may consider it to use with my remaining collection of pentax-mount glass.

Jason

[Winder]

Anyone know the US retail price expected for this body. Hopefully it is a reasonable one considering that Pentax is not breaking any new ground by putting a full frame sensor into a camera body...it been done ad-nauseam buy everyone and their brother. If it is positioned well ,then I may consider it to use with my remaining collection of pentax-mount glass.

Jason

No one has a clue at this point. Ricoh is probably going to implement some new technology into the body to try to stand out from the crowd. My guess it that it is priced between the D750 and the D810.

[jatrax]

Anyone know the US retail price expected for this body. Hopefully it is a reasonable one considering that Pentax is not breaking any new ground by putting a full frame sensor into a camera body...it been done ad-nauseam buy everyone and their brother. If it is positioned well ,then I may consider it to use with my remaining collection of pentax-mount glass.

Jason

lots of guesses, little facts. My guess is $3,299 body only.

[Jasvox]

lots of guesses, little facts. My guess is $3,299 body only.

Yeah, no.

Jason

[Pioneer]

If the recent past is any indication I suspect it will be drastically overpriced to start.

[banep]

lots of guesses, little facts. My guess is $3,299 body only.

In that case we'll see second body very soon after FF debut.

[drougge]

Then why do all the sites that have comparison images looks so similar? Why do we have no clear cut examples? This is nonsense. You assume there are visible imperfections in the lens to be magnified. Wouldn't that be the first thing that would bet established in such a theory? If the visible imperfections round off to zero, then twice zero is zero. But I'm game....

Sometimes, I wonder if folks are just making stuff up, ... or just taken in by and repeating stuff other people made up. "It sounds logical, so, there fore I'll repeat it as fact."

This feels like it's aimed at me. But I'm not quite sure what you're complaining about. Do you claim that there are no imperfections in any lenses, all lenses are absolutely perfect in every way? That seems to be an absurt position, so probably not. So maybe you are claiming that there are lenses for APS-C that are just as good as the best lenses for FF. That may be true (I don't know), but at least I already have lots of lenses, and they cover FF, and they have imperfections, so for me that's not really relevant.

Can you even tell which is which, forget about find lens imperfections in one, that have been magnified in the other?

K-3 or D610, tell us which is which and show us these imperfections.

I'll prefix this by saying that my argument was theoretical, and is obviously true in theory. Practice is often different from theory, but I like my theoretical world and will try to live in it below.

These were no doubt shot with different lenses (as they should be, since they are probably intended to test the cameras). And then of course both images are processes for display, making it even harder to see what differences are from that. But let's see. The black pillow has a blue outline in the left image, a slight yellow outline in the right. The blue (top) pillow has a cyan outline in the left image, not in the right. The left image has been sharpened more, making primarily the violet pillow and the chair look sharper, and also making the previously mentioned outlines look worse. Also there's more structure in they background in the left, but I don't know if that's from the sharpening, partly sensor noise or focus/DOF difference.

None of this tells me which was shot with which camera or lens (and I don't even know what lenses were involved). But I'll claim the right image is technically superior, at least as far as imperfections go, it may be a little softer (or it may just be processed differently).

So K3 on the left then, but that's a guess, I admit that.

[Matthew Saville]

I Posted a couple of images for comparison above... so, you're saying has better base ISO than the other? That is base ISO, so I'm not seeing what you are talking about. I also find it very annoying when I post images to demonstrate my point, and people come back with an opinion. evidence on one hand, an opinion on the other? Is this "fair comment."We aren't playing in the same league here. If it's "without question". How hard can it be to show us?

IN the above images the K-3 image looks leaner and sharper.... according to everything you've stated, that shouldn't be possible. What's your explanation?

The test images you've posted look like one was shot in JPG and the other RAW. The sharpening is totally different. Unless that's your point; if you're saying that they're both completely un-processed RAW files.

My own tests certainly don't reveal differences at base ISO until you really, really push the files. But that is what I do, honestly, in many different real-world situations.