[rawr]

but it isn't a cost effective route for Pentax's first dslr FF body in my opinion.

Same here. Based on previous oracular advice from asahi man, I believe Ricoh will push ahead with a performance tuned 36MP sensor. Not exactly the same Sony IMX094AQP as the D800 from early 2012, which is getting a bit old and might be Nikon designed, but a tweaked 2015 version. Hopefully with an updated Milbeaut image processor running alongside it, and a upgraded SAFOX AF system too.

[beachgardener]

surely there will some sort of leak soon to keep us going

[rawr]

surely there will some sort of leak soon to keep us going

May not be needed.
From the evidence of the last few years, Pentax FF speculations are self-sustaining. No need for external (or real-world) inputs.

[jatrax]

From the evidence of the last few years, Pentax FF speculations are self-sustaining. No need for external (or real-world) inputs.

+1. The hard part is keeping the speculations under control, not keeping them going. I'm expect a complete melt down and server crash this fall.............

[GlassJunkie]

We're all going to need bigger chips.... No... Drives.... No....CPUs..... No.... GPUs... No... Monitors.... No....PCs..... No, I mean MORE STUFF. Carlin would be proud....

[DeadJohn]

The dslr version of the A7RII sensor would require a major rework and a complete new series of engineering samples to start mass production. It takes time to debug a new process with the related lower yield and increased cost. I know that it will happen, but it isn't a cost effective route for Pentax's first dslr FF body in my opinion. I base this on my eighteen years in semiconductor fabrication with Sony.

If Ricoh wanted the Sony 42mp sensor without the on-chip PDAF, that could be done via a contract rather than a new chip design. Sony provides the existing sensor at a negotiated price while Ricoh agrees that the PDAF feature will not be used.

[Clavius]

If Ricoh wanted the Sony 42mp sensor without the on-chip PDAF, that could be done via a contract rather than a new chip design. Sony provides the existing sensor at a negotiated price while Ricoh agrees that the PDAF feature will not be used.

How does Ricoh not using part of that sensor make it cost less for Sony to produce?

[mecrox]

If Ricoh wanted the Sony 42mp sensor without the on-chip PDAF, that could be done via a contract rather than a new chip design. Sony provides the existing sensor at a negotiated price while Ricoh agrees that the PDAF feature will not be used.

It looks as if that Sony sensor has some pretty amazing focusing capabilities even if they are in their infancy. So why would Pentax or anyone else not want them, assuming they are available which they may not be, of course? I mean, Ricoh or Nikon aren't that likely to say "Hello Sony, we'd like your new sensor please but remember to downgrade the AF capability to ensure that our implementation is crap by comparison and you can sell more cameras into our markets as a result." This all strikes me as part of a long-term trend towards building more into the sensor and its electronics. Whatever the reasons for that - technical or economic or both - it gives the sensor-maker more to sell and so more of a whip hand when it comes to pricing et al. Maybe it's a case of get on the bus now or spend an awful long time waiting by the side of the road.

[reh321]

How does Ricoh not using part of that sensor make it cost less for Sony to produce?

It doesn't.

It would protect Sony from a tiny source of competition for a product that is current losing money,
so Sony in essence would be paying Pentax to reduce competition.

I'm not sure that the resulting product would be legal in either the US or EU
because of laws limiting anti-competitive agreements.

[IchabodCrane]

It doesn't.

It would protect Sony from a tiny source of competition for a product that is current losing money,
so Sony in essence would be paying Pentax to reduce competition.

I'm not sure that the resulting product would be legal in either the US or EU
because of laws limiting anti-competitive agreements.

I've had a bunch of training in anti-trust law and I don't think there's anything in that type of agreement that regulators would complain about. Sony's biggest problem would result from them refusing to sell a sensor to someone when they are selling it to someone else (other than internally).

[DeadJohn]

How does Ricoh not using part of that sensor make it cost less for Sony to produce?

It's less expensive for Sony to produce many identical 42mp sensors than it is for them to produce separate models with and without PDAF. The 42mp chip with PDAF is already designed and in production. Turning off PDAF would require redesign work, testing, separate production runs, and a part in Sony's inventory.

[Zygonyx]

Other way round : Pentax is to take all the gist of the new 42Mpix Sony sensor with the best live-view autofocus an SLR did ever have

[DeadJohn]

It looks as if that Sony sensor has some pretty amazing focusing capabilities even if they are in their infancy. So why would Pentax or anyone else not want them, assuming they are available which they may not be, of course? I mean, Ricoh or Nikon aren't that likely to say "Hello Sony, we'd like your new sensor please but remember to downgrade the AF capability to ensure that our implementation is crap by comparison and you can sell more cameras into our markets as a result." This all strikes me as part of a long-term trend towards building more into the sensor and its electronics. Whatever the reasons for that - technical or economic or both - it gives the sensor-maker more to sell and so more of a whip hand when it comes to pricing et al. Maybe it's a case of get on the bus now or spend an awful long time waiting by the side of the road.

If the Pentax FF uses a conventional DSLR mirror design, no light hits the sensor until after the shutter is released. Things need to be in focus before releasing the shutter so a separate PDAF module is required.

If the FF is a mirrorless or translucent mirror design, then on-chip PDAF becomes meaningful.

[Clavius]

It doesn't.

It would protect Sony from a tiny source of competition for a product that is current losing money,
so Sony in essence would be paying Pentax to reduce competition.

I'm not sure that the resulting product would be legal in either the US or EU
because of laws limiting anti-competitive agreements.

It's less expensive for Sony to produce many identical 42mp sensors than it is for them to produce separate models with and without PDAF. The 42mp chip with PDAF is already designed and in production. Turning off PDAF would require redesign work, testing, separate production runs, and a part in Sony's inventory.

...Until the firmware gets hacked and PDAF is enabled. It could go right into the "Pentax firware hacking revived"-thread.

Other way round : Pentax is to take all the gist of the new 42Mpix Sony sensor with the best live-view autofocus an SLR did ever have

That would be a DSLR with LV that's far far better then the OVF.

[konraDarnok]

Pentax patented an adjustable translucence mirror. PDAF is easily the #1 complaint of Pentax users for years now. If Sony offered an off the shelf PD on chip solution they'd be crazy to not implement it.