[K David]

100mp is just bloody outrageous.

Canon has a 120-mp DSLR (though they never plan to sell it in a camera.)

High megapixel counts have a home -- spy satellites, geoimaging, etc. They also help get the company's name in the headlines a bit.

Most interestingly about the 120-mp sensor, and why it's so scary, it was able to resolve as readable the tail letters on a commercial plane 11 miles from the camera. Canon also has a prototype 250-mp sensor.

So the long-and-short of it is that 100 mp is really not so outrageous (any more so than six mp was considered insane 15 years ago) today and, someday, will be considered standard for high-end pro-grade bodies.

[MMVIII]

Pixel shift is a gimmick at this point. Yes, it does allow for better product photography, but it is not something that easily allows for real world shots. It has been demonstrated multiple times that using it in landscape shots where there is light wind will produce image with lots of artifacts, albeit with extra detail in the parts of the image that don't move. Waterfall photos with it don't look good. It is useless for hand held photos.

As to the reason for the delay, it is hard to say, isn't it? Either there was hardware issue that wasn't solvable in the time they had, a software problem, some feature that they wanted to be there that wasn't there, the lenses weren't done, or maybe they want the video on this camera to be decent and it isn't yet. Whatever the case, there has been a delay.

People aren't blaming the delay on the 42 megapixel sensor, they are just saying that if Pentax does use the newest sensor out there, then they would be more willing to wait on said full frame camera, whereas, they would be less willing to do so if it were coming out with the 24 megapixel sensor in the D610.

Gimmick for one, stunning possibility for someone else. Like AF-C, good for birders and sport but useless in product, landscape, architecture, documentation, repro... photography. Nevertheless, good to have it, but, unlike AF-C, if pixel-shift appears in this camera it will be a unique buying point, for those who can benefit from it.

[Nass]

Gimmick for one, stunning possibility for someone else. Like AF-C, good for birders and sport but useless in product, landscape, architecture, documentation, repro... photography. Nevertheless, good to have it, but, unlike AF-C, if pixel-shift appears in this camera it will be a unique buying point, for those who can benefit from it.

Pixel shift good for birders and sport? That's a mistake, right?

[boriscleto]

Pixel shift good for birders and sport? That's a mistake, right?

It says AF.C is good for birders and sport...

[Nicolas06]

Gimmick for one, stunning possibility for someone else. Like AF-C, good for birders and sport but useless in product, landscape, architecture, documentation, repro... photography. Nevertheless, good to have it, but, unlike AF-C, if pixel-shift appears in this camera it will be a unique buying point, for those who can benefit from it.

Ony if the MP follow and when you can use it. if the FF is 24MP and pixel shift would it offer more resolution than a 36MP, 42MP or 51MP sensor? Or a 120MP sensor? Me I bet for the 120MP sensor, sorry.

After all I could just take the 42MP sensor and get it all the time. For the few % of shoots when pixel shift is indeed possible, I could just do a 2 pano shoot, after all subject is perfectly still and get something like 70MP image. That may get me more details than 24MP pixel shift.

Now if I have pixel shift and 42MP, I get the best of both world and maybe I can approach the Canon 120MP on still subjects.

But there other aspects, if you have 42MP you have as many pixels as the latest Sony and likely the next Nikon. You are not that far from the 50MP of Canon without their very average high dynamic range and high iso issues. You are immediately better to EVERYTHING that was release before it. You also get the improved read performance allowing for better video, more FPS. You also get the latest sensor improvements meaning your high iso perf is going to be better than what is available on 24 or 36MP sensors, meaning you get 42MP worth of detail but the high iso perf of the A7s.

If Pentax want to compete they need differenciation, sure, but they also need to avoid to be outclassed otherwise the differentiation will help their competitors, not themselves.

[Nicolas06]

100mp is just bloody outrageous. 42 is already pushing it. Guys, if your photos are perfectly in focus in the first place that's what counts. The FF is coming and it will be great. They don't need to follow suit with canon, they just need the FF to be pumped with a decent size sensor, nothing outrageous and again, as so many have said, spot on AF, something that Pentax has fallen behind on in the past. Let's think too about lenses. Now that's important. Our old fa's ecc will do great but, for me what is equally important is a great line up of solid lenses. Without them all the other technology in the world won't make a diff. This is probably slowed the production line for FF down a bit I'd say. They are still working on the FF lenses. Something that Nikon, for example, weren't that prepared for when they released their first FF I heard

That's your point of view. I share it with you that if you done it right. Focussed properly, have a great framing and composition, have an interresting subject nobody will care if you have a 42MP or 36MP FF... Or an APSC or an m4/3. And honestly if you don't have an interresting subject and great composition, nobody will look at your photo anyway!

Here many are calling the FF because they think this is important. Other people might think they need more resolution too. If you want to sell, you need a market and if you can manage to get not only the people that want an FF but don't care about resolution but also the one that care about it, that's better.

Now for people like me that don't care much of FF, you have an APSC and for people that don't care of resolution like you but want an FF, you'll have an entry level 24MP FF.

All camera that have at least m4/3 sensor and few decent lenses associated with them take great photos. The difference is not the camera, it is the photographer. In the end we are just speaking on what necessary improvements are needed on a product that already fufill by far all the needs one can have. This is pure marketing and what count is what sell, not what is usefull.

FF is a key feature that allow to sell for basically twice the price both the camera and lenses. It has been the cases for years. MP count is also a differentiator... There something like a thousand $ between low end 24MP FF and high end 36MP FF...

[Mattox]

Nah, for me it's all getting out of hand. In the end, a landscape photographer for example, who prints big and relies on high resolution images, for me will be more than happy, regardless of how future technology prevails, with let's say Nikon d810 resolution combined with Pentax pixel resolution technology. How could you want more than than. Yeh, ok for out of control cropping, ok, but for an everyday pro photography, for me that is the top

[Nicolas06]

Nah, for me it's all getting out of hand. In the end, a landscape photographer for example, who prints big and relies on high resolution images, for me will be more than happy, regardless of how future technology prevails, with let's say Nikon d810 resolution combined with Pentax pixel resolution technology. How could you want more than than. Yeh, ok for out of control cropping, ok, but for an everyday pro photography, for me that is the top

But your 24MP K3 would do just fine too except if you crop heavily. That's the same. There a thread somewhere where people argue that 6MP is all you need anyway.

Now why is it that the limit is the D810 resolution not the K3 or not 5Ds?

I remember a thread by Normhead that explain the most expensive photos ever sold are shoot with large format camera and film, scanned in very high resolution much much more than 36 or 42MP with lot of post processing work. Then you can print a whole wall with the photo and stare at it and it look there life like level of details.

That just mostly marketing anyway and MP is just so easy. More MP is better or at least not worse. So let's choose the camera with more MPs!

[Fontan]

If FF ever comes out, we should mount new FA ltds (if they come out) and old FA ltds, shoot identical photos at identical settings, and do a blind tasting to see if people can actually tell. I seriously doubt anyone can on consistent basis.

[Rondec]

If FF ever comes out, we should mount new FA ltds (if they come out) and old FA ltds, shoot identical photos at identical settings, and do a blind tasting to see if people can actually tell. I seriously doubt anyone can on consistent basis.

Oh, I think it will be visible. Different coatings will give different temperatures to images. FA limiteds definitely have a warmer feel than the DA limiteds. Resolution will be the same though.

[biz-engineer]

But your 24MP K3 would do just fine too except if you crop heavily. That's the same. There a thread somewhere where people argue that 6MP is all you need anyway. Now why is it that the limit is the D810 resolution not the K3 or not 5Ds? I remember a thread by Normhead that explain the most expensive photos ever sold are shoot with large format camera and film, scanned in very high resolution much much more than 36 or 42MP with lot of post processing work. Then you can print a whole wall with the photo and stare at it and it look there life like level of details. That just mostly marketing anyway and MP is just so easy. More MP is better or at least not worse. So let's choose the camera with more MPs!

Nah, for me it's all getting out of hand. In the end, a landscape photographer for example, who prints big and relies on high resolution images, for me will be more than happy, regardless of how future technology prevails, with let's say Nikon d810 resolution combined with Pentax pixel resolution technology. How could you want more than than. Yeh, ok for out of control cropping, ok, but for an everyday pro photography, for me that is the top

Interesting discussion. It happens that 24Mpixels is a good number: 24M = 6M monochromatic cells x 4, just 6Mp for spacial sampling for each primary color at which a normal viewing distance offers infinite enlargement (if you look at a print at a distance on one time the diagonal of the print, you can enlarge indefinitely without perceiving any pixelization). More precisely, 28Mpixel organized is 7Mp x4 and 36Mp without OAA organized in 8Mp x 4. My point is when you reach from 24Mp to 36Mp bayer sensors resolution, having more pixels does not bring that much benefit for printing, except when cropping before enlargement. However, from 24Mp onward, IMO, improvements in color accuracy and depth are welcome. BTW, only very approximate and very limited sensor perf. parameter (essentially noise or noise related) are known to the public (because DXO measure it without expensive sensor equipment such as silicon wafer prober etc..). Linearity and pixel to pixel matching for instance... one may wonder why 645z images have such beautiful tones and clarity. Have you tried to stitch a 50Mpixels image from multiple K-3 images at 100 ISO and compare it with a 645z image also at ISO100....

[Kharan]

To everyone who thinks that the FF cam will feature the new Sony 42 MP sensor: don't delude yourselves. That sensor is extremely new, still exclusive to Sony, and I harbor many doubts that it'll even make it to Nikon. Also, for those of you who weren't paying attention, the amount of pixels of that sensor was chosen for 4K scalability, something that neither Nikon nor Pentax will really take advantage of.
Considering the timeframe of such a large project, the sensor must've been chosen years ago. It's much more likely that Sony have been working on an improved 36 MP chip, that Pentax could be the first to use. Maybe a version of that chip with OSPDAF, which would make the upcoming camera much more versatile and capable in live view. Of course, the venerable 24 MP one is also a possibility, but it's showing its age now, and would make for a bad start of the new Pentax line.
I personally hope it's the 36 MP sensor, for two reasons: first, it's been proven to work exceedingly well, and is reliable; second, it's little more than the very good 16 MP APS-C chip scaled up, and we know that Pentax did an excellent job of optimizing it.

[shakereduced]

To everyone who thinks that the FF cam will feature the new Sony 42 MP sensor: don't delude yourselves. That sensor is extremely new, still exclusive to Sony, and I harbor many doubts that it'll even make it to Nikon. Also, for those of you who weren't paying attention, the amount of pixels of that sensor was chosen for 4K scalability, something that neither Nikon nor Pentax will really take advantage of.
Considering the timeframe of such a large project, the sensor must've been chosen years ago. It's much more likely that Sony have been working on an improved 36 MP chip, that Pentax could be the first to use. Maybe a version of that chip with OSPDAF, which would make the upcoming camera much more versatile and capable in live view. Of course, the venerable 24 MP one is also a possibility, but it's showing its age now, and would make for a bad start of the new Pentax line.
I personally hope it's the 36 MP sensor, for two reasons: first, it's been proven to work exceedingly well, and is reliable; second, it's little more than the very good 16 MP APS-C chip scaled up, and we know that Pentax did an excellent job of optimizing it.

I thought that Sony's sensor division only gives exclusivity to their camera division for 6 months after announcing a sensor, so even a December release would have been fine for the 42mp sensor under that agreement, let alone anytime next year. Personally I don't care if the sensor is 24, 36, or 42mp. But I definitely would like the BSI technology from the current 42mp sensor over the other current ones because of its low light performance. A 24 or 36mp BSI sensor would be nice too, but I would worry that Pentax would get caught up in that 6 month exclusivity window if a Sony camera gets it first.

[Kharan]

I thought that Sony's sensor division only gives exclusivity to their camera division for 6 months after announcing a sensor, so even a December release would have been fine for the 42mp sensor under that agreement, let alone anytime next year. Personally I don't care if the sensor is 24, 36, or 42mp. But I definitely would like the BSI technology from the current 42mp sensor over the other current ones because of its low light performance. A 24 or 36mp BSI sensor would be nice too, but I would worry that Pentax would get caught up in that 6 month exclusivity window if a Sony camera gets it first.

The 6-month lapse has been doing the rounds over the internet, but I'm not sure it's their official policy. It's a matter of looking at the 12 MP sensor in the A7s, which hasn't been featured in cameras from other brands, and probably never will (despite the fact that Nikon, for instance, could put it to much use in a potential D5). But I could be wrong, as this is all speculation. However, I get the feeling that Sony is more serious about cameras than ever before, and might want to start keeping their best technology to themselves, at least for a year (in camera time, about four or five years ). Of course, there's all these rumors about their A6000 successor's delays being linked to the sensor, and that it might be affecting other camera makers. Who knows?

[rawr]

I think there have been many suggestions in the past that the FF sensor may indeed be 36 MP. Currently the D810 sensor performs very well in terms of dynamic range, signal-to-noise etc, and is just a whisker behind the latest 42MP sensor in those specs. Maybe Pentax will be able to tune the 36MP a bit more, but it already seems very good.

Outside of the 36 MP sensor performance, they may simply plan to do lots of useful stuff in ancillary systems - like boost the frame rate to a class-leading 8 fps, massively increase the buffer, improve the video, improve the metering sensor, improve the AF sensor, improve the shake reduction etc etc. Even if 'only' 36MP, they could still build a compelling package around 36MP.