[ogl]

Isnt that calculation not the same as the crop factor?
So would APSC crop not be around 24 MPx? (24 x 1,5 = 36)
How did you calculate 15 Mpx in APS-c Mode?

Easy - 36/2.25=16 MP

[ffking]

Easy - 36/2.25=16

should perhaps be mentioned that this is the reduction in surface area factor (2,25)

[monochrome]

no, the reason why the 645z get the same AF module as the K-3 is because MF is not targeted at sport and wildlife applications, therefore even if the AF is grouped in the middle of the MF frame , it's not an issue.

No. The reason 645z got the same AF module as K-3 is the same as the reason 645D got the same AF module as K-7.

It was on the shelf, like most of the rest of the 645 internals.

[ogl]

I've heard that K-1 has absolutely new AF modules with 50+ AF points...

[biz-engineer]

No. The reason 645z got the same AF module as K-3 is the same as the reason 645D got the same AF module as K-7. It was on the shelf, like most of the rest of the 645 internals.

Do you do sport photogrpahy with a 645D/Z and a 800mm 10Kg lens ? D5 and 1Dx are ff , they aren't medium format.

[i5_david]

Easy - 36/2.25=16 MP

Oh. Thanksalot. I didn't know that. But now it's clear all folks cried for "at least" a 36 sensor. Why it's not the crop factor of 1,5?! Sounded so locigal to me haha (I am not a mathematic magician )

[ffking]

I've heard that K-1 has absolutely new AF modules with 50+ AF points...

it would be good if it were comparable to the D810 - it's not meant to be a sports camera like the new Nikons, so 50ish would be plenty good enough

[biz-engineer]

The reason 645z got the same AF module as K-3 is the same as the reason 645D got the same AF module as K-7.

That, obviously, if it was not a requirement to have a larger AF for the 645D and Z, they were no going to develop one specifically.

[Zygonyx]

I've heard that K-1 has absolutely new AF modules with 50+ AF points...

I wish i'd heard that too
Or was it an other dream ?

[Mistral75]

Isnt that calculation not the same as the crop factor?
So would APSC crop not be around 24 MPx? (24 x 1,5 = 36)
How did you calculate 15 Mpx in APS-c Mode?

36 ÷ 1,5 ^ 2 = 16.

Both the length and the width of the sensor being 1.5 times smaller, the area, and consequently the pixel number, is 2.25 times smaller.

[ogl]

Oh. Thanksalot. I didn't know that. But now it's clear all folks cried for "at least" a 36 sensor. Why it's not the crop factor of 1,5?! Sounded so locigal to me haha (I am not a mathematic magician )

the surface of FF sensor is 2.25 times bigger than APS-C sensor.

24 MP FF gives us only 10 MP photos in APS-C mode.

---------- Post added 02-12-2016 at 11:07 AM ----------

I wish i'd heard that too
Or was it an other dream ?

I can't confirm. It's just forum's rumor of last year. Maybe asahi man said about it?

[monochrome]

Do you do sport photogrpahy with a 645D/Z and a 800mm 10Kg lens ? D5 and 1Dx are ff , they aren't medium format.

That's a straw man argument. Neither K-7 nor K-3 was built nor marketed as a Sports/Action camera either, despite the expectation that high shutter speed / low Mp was necessary to be 'competitive'. Pentax makes one or two generalist cameras (per sensor format) with high build quality. They don't make multiple specialty cameras. They're very good at spreading technology R&D across multiple formats and price points to get unit costs down. 645D and 645Z exist, more than any other reason, because there was / is a pre-existing inventory of FA645 (and even a few A645) lenses acquired by Hoya and then Ricoh. The 645 digital camera format economics work at the value price point due to shared technology and zero-cost lenses.

MF usage in action is irrelevant.

[Kunzite]

no, the reason why the 645z get the same AF module as the K-3 is because MF is not targeted at sport and wildlife applications, therefore even if the AF is grouped in the middle of the MF frame , it's not an issue.

However, FF is having higher iso perf and still very much used for sports, which is why it makes sense to upgrade the af module on the ff camera. If Pentax uses the K-3 AF module on the FF, it's going to be a big minus for the camera, but I think there is a very high chance that Ricoh redesigned the AF module for the FF , with potentially reusing this more advanced AF into a future APSC camera, like Canon and Nikon are doing: you just get a larger frame coverage on APSC.

I'm pretty sure that the ff camera will be good to cover most people actual needs (K-3 is already such as camera), but once again, people (and also Ricoh) focus more on camera only then on lenses. That's not how to evaluate the capabilities of a camera + lenses system. Right away, if it has a full frame sensor inside, you'll immediately get less noise and more overall resolution versus APSC (I remember the times of the so good DA limited primes APSC of Pentax... that are actually wiped out by any full frame system even with an average lens on it...).

Is there any DMF camera targeted at sport and wildlife applications? As I said, the 645z can meet and exceed it's expected performance by reusing K-3's AF - they didn't had to develop an entirely new AF system. It's a highly competitive product.
OTOH sports is the wrong application for the format. There you need speed, not exquisite image quality.

The K-1, OTOH, while not being targeted at sport itself, must be competitive in its group.

As for focusing more on camera only, hmm, let's see:
Cameras: K-1
New lenses (we know of): 150-450, 24-70, 70-200, 15-30, 28-105

[biz-engineer]

That's a straw man argument. Neither K-7 nor K-3 was built nor marketed as a Sports/Action camera either, despite the expectation that high shutter speed / low Mp was necessary to be 'competitive'. Pentax makes one or two generalist cameras (per sensor format) with high build quality. They don't make multiple specialty cameras. They're very good at spreading technology R&D across multiple formats and price points to get unit costs down. 645D and 645Z exist, more than any other reason, because there was / is a pre-existing inventory of FA645 (and even a few A645) lenses acquired by Hoya and then Ricoh. The 645 digital camera format economics work at the value price point due to shared technology and zero-cost lenses.

Right, then they must be really stupid to have implemented a 27 points AF on the K-3 because it would have costed them nothing to reuse the AF module from the K-5. So, I'll stop there :-)

[Kunzite]

And that's another straw man argument (do we see a pattern?). The claim was made, and applies to Pentax' medium format cameras.