New APSC Pentax by early 2016, using Sony A7000 sensor?

The Squirrel Mafia · 02-18-2016, 10:27 AM

^ Indeed. Even the amazing Sony can't seem to defy physics. The latest 24MP APS-C Sony sensor that was used in the D5500/D7200 still shows noise at ISO 6400. When comparing it to the K-3/II & the latest Canon T6s, those 2 cameras seem to produce a finer luminance grain than the rest, but it's not by much.

Heck even full frame & medium formats show noise at ISO 6400, although it's less on FF & far less on medium format. ISO 6400 on the Pentax 645Z is like ISO 400 on the K-3, but there is still some noise there.

falconeye · 02-18-2016, 06:05 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia

ISO 6400 on the Pentax 645Z is like ISO 400 on the K-3

It is like ISO 1600 on the K-3, please don't exagerate or do the math before posting.

Nicolas06 · 02-20-2016, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

It is like ISO 1600 on the K-3, please don't exagerate or do the math before posting.

+1 iso 400 would be larger than full frame MF to me.

ebk · 02-20-2016, 02:17 AM

the new Pentax k-1 is now here.
it was a long ride started in 2001.

and now:
i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera.
ff is the future

thibs · 02-20-2016, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by ebk

the new Pentax k-1 is now here.
it was a long ride started in 2001.

and now:
i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera.
ff is the future

Not yet IMO.
But they might want to speed up FF transition if that make them get better profit margins.

Nicolas06 · 02-20-2016, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by ebk

and now:
i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera.
ff is the future

Today there 10 time the market for APSC than FF. FF make for bigger/heavier/pricier lenses (and you also need 1.5X longer focal length) and bodies. There many more people willing to buy K3 + 18-135 (1000$ ?) than K1 + 28-105 (2500$ ?) and even many more thinking of K50 + 18-135 (600$ ?)

For all the people I know, a smaller size is also an important factor. FF is for some enthousiasts and pros. It is also the highend market. Saying everybody would go FF and no more APSC would be like expecting to buy trucks instead of car because they have more carrying capacity.

The next logical step for Pentax is to to provide a new APSC flagship by the end of the year, like they always did. It would likely have the AF of the K1, some articulated screen of K1 or K-S2, improved pixel shift and SR and let's not forget the fantastics ergonomics with of the K1. If they managed to get better high iso, better video or whateverever else to compliment, many people would go to buy one.

A bit before, would make lot of sense to make a refresh of the medium end APSC offering, like they always did. The new entry level body could be a K-S2 inside a K50 body without articulated screen but 20MP sensor and same basic AF? The new mid level body could be a K3 inside a K-S2 body so K3 AF, K3 sensor, but more basic shutter, maybe no pixel shift, 1 single card slot, simpler articulated screen, K-S2 ergonomics.

All of this would make lot of sense to me.

apete · 02-20-2016, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by ebk

and now:
i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera.
ff is the future

Why not skip full and go for medium? ;-)

MadMathMind · 02-20-2016, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by ebk

and now:
i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera.
ff is the future

Canon and Nikon both just released $2k APS-C cameras. Or will release soon. I don't think APS-C is dead. But where it gets interesting is for these users: own Canon or Nikon entry level model with the kit lens and maybe one other inexpensive lens. Looking to jump to something more advanced. Do they consider the Pentax $1800 FF camera, which is $200 cheaper than those high-end APS-C models? The lens investment is basically zero for them. Moving to another system is not a terribly major decision.

That's really a big chunk of the APS-C market: people who just buy these things and spend little else on them. It makes Canon's market share awesome but the $100-200 profit they see on the Rebel T3i buyer is about all they get from him.

normhead · 02-20-2016, 09:11 AM - **1 Like**

MY question is what is the big deal, 36 compared to 42. That's a 17% increase in resolution. In photography we tend to go in double or half. That's not even close. Couple that with the fact that on A2 paper a 16 MP images doesn't look much different than a 36 MP image, this is probably the least relevant piece of info out there. Many Pentax shooters are happy with 16 MP and 24 is bonus. 36 is barely better than 24, a 50% increase, like half a stop.

There might be a person who would sell a 36 MP camera to get a 42 MP camera based just on MP, but I'd question their judgement, and suggest they have way to much money to spend.

JimmyDranox · 02-20-2016, 09:38 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

MY question is what is the big deal, 36 compared to 42. That's a 17% increase in resolution. In photography we tend to go in double or half. That's not even close. Couple that with the fact that on A2 paper a 16 MP images doesn't look much different than a 36 MP image, this is probably the least relevant piece of info out there. Many Pentax shooters are happy with 16 MP and 24 is bonus. 36 is barely better than 24, a 50% increase, like half a stop.

There might be a person who would sell a 36 MP camera to get a 42 MP camera based just on MP, but I'd question their judgement, and suggest they have way to much money to spend.

It's a problem of money/brain ratio

Nicolas06 · 02-20-2016, 09:41 AM

There 17% more pixels, but resolution is for one dimension, not surface density. so you have to apply a square root there so that's more like 8%.

As for 24 vs 36, this depend of what 24 and 36 we speak... vs a 24MP with low pass filter, the gain better and more comparable to 1 full stop, your famous 2X normhead.

But that doesn't mean we need it all the time or ever. Much depend of the use case. This basically allow for heavy crop (after all an APSC crop of 36MP FF is 15MP !) or huge print with very fine detail like A0.

Zygonyx · 02-20-2016, 10:02 AM

Gosh, any 36 or 42 Mpix APS-C in sight ?!

cali92rs · 02-20-2016, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by normhead

MY question is what is the big deal, 36 compared to 42. That's a 17% increase in resolution. In photography we tend to go in double or half. That's not even close. Couple that with the fact that on A2 paper a 16 MP images doesn't look much different than a 36 MP image, this is probably the least relevant piece of info out there. Many Pentax shooters are happy with 16 MP and 24 is bonus. 36 is barely better than 24, a 50% increase, like half a stop.

There might be a person who would sell a 36 MP camera to get a 42 MP camera based just on MP, but I'd question their judgement, and suggest they have way to much money to spend.

I agree that 36 vs 42 mp is pretty negligible.
But what makes a difference is that the 42 MP Sony sensors are BSI, meaning they are better in low light situations. It wont matter for those that always keep their ISOs low but is a big deal for others.

Zygonyx · 02-20-2016, 10:14 AM

BSI APS-C ?!
I'll buy it

normhead · 02-20-2016, 10:21 AM

You'd think at some point back lit sensors will make it to APS-c. After all there has been BSI WGs for years. 16 MP on those little tiny sensors, but, the high ISO still pretty much sucks on them as far as I know.

02-20-2016, 10:05 AM	#598
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by normhead MY question is what is the big deal, 36 compared to 42. That's a 17% increase in resolution. In photography we tend to go in double or half. That's not even close. Couple that with the fact that on A2 paper a 16 MP images doesn't look much different than a 36 MP image, this is probably the least relevant piece of info out there. Many Pentax shooters are happy with 16 MP and 24 is bonus. 36 is barely better than 24, a 50% increase, like half a stop. There might be a person who would sell a 36 MP camera to get a 42 MP camera based just on MP, but I'd question their judgement, and suggest they have way to much money to spend. I agree that 36 vs 42 mp is pretty negligible. But what makes a difference is that the 42 MP Sony sensors are BSI, meaning they are better in low light situations. It wont matter for those that always keep their ISOs low but is a big deal for others. Last edited by cali92rs; 02-20-2016 at 10:12 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Pentax 645D2014 also uses the 50MP Sony CMOS sensor!	ElJamoquio	Pentax News and Rumors	428	03-21-2014 12:57 AM
Using 67 lenses on Pentax APSC bodies-focal length setting	cleffa	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	11-26-2013 05:22 AM
K-3 with 24mp Sony A77 sensor will be announced in early October	jogiba	Pentax News and Rumors	35	10-01-2013 02:07 PM
Behold! Sony's new trojan horse DSLR, the A7000 Z-shift	JohnBee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	4	09-02-2013 06:26 AM
New APSC/FF sensor news beginning to take shape...	JohnBee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	4	07-06-2011 04:11 AM

02-18-2016, 10:27 AM	#586
The Squirrel Mafia Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 3,056	^ Indeed. Even the amazing Sony can't seem to defy physics. The latest 24MP APS-C Sony sensor that was used in the D5500/D7200 still shows noise at ISO 6400. When comparing it to the K-3/II & the latest Canon T6s, those 2 cameras seem to produce a finer luminance grain than the rest, but it's not by much. Heck even full frame & medium formats show noise at ISO 6400, although it's less on FF & far less on medium format. ISO 6400 on the Pentax 645Z is like ISO 400 on the K-3, but there is still some noise there.

02-18-2016, 06:05 PM - 1 Like	#587
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia ISO 6400 on the Pentax 645Z is like ISO 400 on the K-3 It is like ISO 1600 on the K-3, please don't exagerate or do the math before posting.

02-20-2016, 02:00 AM	#588
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by falconeye It is like ISO 1600 on the K-3, please don't exagerate or do the math before posting. +1 iso 400 would be larger than full frame MF to me.

02-20-2016, 02:17 AM	#589
ebk Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Utrecht Posts: 148	the new Pentax k-1 is now here. it was a long ride started in 2001. and now: i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera. ff is the future

02-20-2016, 02:22 AM	#590
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by ebk the new Pentax k-1 is now here. it was a long ride started in 2001. and now: i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera. ff is the future Not yet IMO. But they might want to speed up FF transition if that make them get better profit margins.

02-20-2016, 02:56 AM	#591
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by ebk and now: i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera. ff is the future Today there 10 time the market for APSC than FF. FF make for bigger/heavier/pricier lenses (and you also need 1.5X longer focal length) and bodies. There many more people willing to buy K3 + 18-135 (1000$ ?) than K1 + 28-105 (2500$ ?) and even many more thinking of K50 + 18-135 (600$ ?) For all the people I know, a smaller size is also an important factor. FF is for some enthousiasts and pros. It is also the highend market. Saying everybody would go FF and no more APSC would be like expecting to buy trucks instead of car because they have more carrying capacity. The next logical step for Pentax is to to provide a new APSC flagship by the end of the year, like they always did. It would likely have the AF of the K1, some articulated screen of K1 or K-S2, improved pixel shift and SR and let's not forget the fantastics ergonomics with of the K1. If they managed to get better high iso, better video or whateverever else to compliment, many people would go to buy one. A bit before, would make lot of sense to make a refresh of the medium end APSC offering, like they always did. The new entry level body could be a K-S2 inside a K50 body without articulated screen but 20MP sensor and same basic AF? The new mid level body could be a K3 inside a K-S2 body so K3 AF, K3 sensor, but more basic shutter, maybe no pixel shift, 1 single card slot, simpler articulated screen, K-S2 ergonomics. All of this would make lot of sense to me.

02-20-2016, 03:05 AM	#592
apete Senior Member Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 249	Originally posted by ebk and now: i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera. ff is the future Why not skip full and go for medium? ;-)

02-20-2016, 09:01 AM	#593
MadMathMind Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,717	Originally posted by ebk and now: i think the Pentax k-3Ii was the last aps-c camera. ff is the future Canon and Nikon both just released $2k APS-C cameras. Or will release soon. I don't think APS-C is dead. But where it gets interesting is for these users: own Canon or Nikon entry level model with the kit lens and maybe one other inexpensive lens. Looking to jump to something more advanced. Do they consider the Pentax $1800 FF camera, which is $200 cheaper than those high-end APS-C models? The lens investment is basically zero for them. Moving to another system is not a terribly major decision. That's really a big chunk of the APS-C market: people who just buy these things and spend little else on them. It makes Canon's market share awesome but the $100-200 profit they see on the Rebel T3i buyer is about all they get from him.

02-20-2016, 09:11 AM - 1 Like	#594
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	MY question is what is the big deal, 36 compared to 42. That's a 17% increase in resolution. In photography we tend to go in double or half. That's not even close. Couple that with the fact that on A2 paper a 16 MP images doesn't look much different than a 36 MP image, this is probably the least relevant piece of info out there. Many Pentax shooters are happy with 16 MP and 24 is bonus. 36 is barely better than 24, a 50% increase, like half a stop. There might be a person who would sell a 36 MP camera to get a 42 MP camera based just on MP, but I'd question their judgement, and suggest they have way to much money to spend.

02-20-2016, 09:38 AM - 1 Like	#595
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	Originally posted by normhead MY question is what is the big deal, 36 compared to 42. That's a 17% increase in resolution. In photography we tend to go in double or half. That's not even close. Couple that with the fact that on A2 paper a 16 MP images doesn't look much different than a 36 MP image, this is probably the least relevant piece of info out there. Many Pentax shooters are happy with 16 MP and 24 is bonus. 36 is barely better than 24, a 50% increase, like half a stop. There might be a person who would sell a 36 MP camera to get a 42 MP camera based just on MP, but I'd question their judgement, and suggest they have way to much money to spend. It's a problem of money/brain ratio

02-20-2016, 09:41 AM	#596
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	There 17% more pixels, but resolution is for one dimension, not surface density. so you have to apply a square root there so that's more like 8%. As for 24 vs 36, this depend of what 24 and 36 we speak... vs a 24MP with low pass filter, the gain better and more comparable to 1 full stop, your famous 2X normhead. But that doesn't mean we need it all the time or ever. Much depend of the use case. This basically allow for heavy crop (after all an APSC crop of 36MP FF is 15MP !) or huge print with very fine detail like A0.

02-20-2016, 10:02 AM	#597
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Gosh, any 36 or 42 Mpix APS-C in sight ?!

02-20-2016, 10:14 AM	#599
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	BSI APS-C ?! I'll buy it

02-20-2016, 10:21 AM	#600
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	You'd think at some point back lit sensors will make it to APS-c. After all there has been BSI WGs for years. 16 MP on those little tiny sensors, but, the high ISO still pretty much sucks on them as far as I know.