[robbiec]

They are waiting for the DXOMark score using the standard range first , if it doesn't get into the top 3 then they'll enable 80, 50, 36, the latter 2 with pixelshift enabled by default

[rawr]

Really?

OK. I should have said 'currently'.
That option isn't there in the K-3, K-S2, nor the 645Z (as you probably are aware).

[Fogel70]

Apologies if this has been covered earlier.

I don't see an extended ISO option mentioned anywhere but I see that the ISO specs say (my emphasis):

"Sensitivity
(Standard output) ISO AUTO/100 to 204800 (EV steps can be set to 1EV, 1/2EV or 1/3EV)"

Does this mean that there is the possibility of extended ISO (both higher and lower) as a firmware upgrade?

They might mean that ISO range may change in some circumstances.
FI if you enable "highlight correction" ISO 100 will not be available, and in video and auto mode the full range on ISO may not be used.

[Dieseler]

Unfortunately I don't see it anywhere in the Custom function menu, So if Pentax doesn't have it listed there there is a zero possibility of it being added in later.

They might mean that ISO range may change in some circumstances.
FI if you enable "highlight correction" ISO 100 will not be available, and in video and auto mode the full range on ISO may not be used.

OK, got it.

Thanks everyone.

[Zygonyx]

Can someone explain why there are so many complaints about the megapixel count? I do not understand why it is a problem at all since one can choose in the menus to shoot smaller size files if they desire. It is better to have the megapixels than to not have them, as some people crop heavily and/or print very large and truly need them.

Tank you for this commonsensefull opinion

---------- Post added 21-02-16 at 00:53 ----------

Really?

Good shot, please could you show us others like this ?

[clackers]

Can someone explain why there are so many complaints about the megapixel count? I do not understand why it is a problem at all since one can choose in the menus to shoot smaller size files if they desire.

Yes, if you're a JPEG shooter. ☺

[Digitalis]

Good shot, please could you show us others like this ?

nothing special, It's just a K5IIs. I put the lighting together in less than a minute.

[Simen1]

They are waiting for the DXOMark score using the standard range first , if it doesn't get into the top 3 then they'll enable 80, 50, 36, the latter 2 with pixelshift enabled by default

First off, DXO claim they never re-test cameras. Second, they won't let Pentax (or anybody else) compete on fair and even grounds with their own DXO One camera. DXO used to be objective before, but that is history.

[Zygonyx]

Btw i cant see how they could sell sufficient numbers of Ones, my opinion is that they've put themselves in danger on both software and hardware markets.

[Simen1]

Can someone explain why there are so many complaints about the megapixel count? I do not understand why it is a problem at all since one can choose in the menus to shoot smaller size files if they desire. It is better to have the megapixels than to not have them, as some people crop heavily and/or print very large and truly need them.

I hope we wont go deep into a megapixel discussion here, but if you haven't already heard the reasons for fewer megapixels on chip, here is a few:

- Better dynamic range (only relevant to raw photographers)
- Less storage space / more images per GB (only relevant to raw photographers, unless we get a pixel binned raw mode)
- Potentially faster burst shooting, more images in the buffer, fewer Mp to process means better battery capacity (# images) and faster post processing
- Less "need"/temptation for huge, heavy and expensive, super sharp lenses

Some of these points can be partially improved by using the APS-C raw mode, but then you might be better of with a APS-C camera from the start.

[Kharan]

I hope we wont go deep into a megapixel discussion here, but if you haven't already heard the reasons for fewer megapixels on chip, here is a few:

- Better dynamic range (only relevant to raw photographers)
- Less storage space / more images per GB (only relevant to raw photographers, unless we get a pixel binned raw mode)
- Potentially faster burst shooting, more images in the buffer, fewer Mp to process means better battery capacity (# images) and faster post processing
- Less "need"/temptation for huge, heavy and expensive, super sharp lenses

Some of these points can be partially improved by using the APS-C raw mode, but then you might be better of with a APS-C camera from the start.

Actually, the champion of the 'fewer pixels' school, the A7s, has less dynamic range at base ISO than the D800. It improves after ISO 1600, where it seems to have some analog gain trick built-in. I agree with the other three points, but honestly, the fact that you get a D800 plus a K-5IIs rolled up into one Pentax body is amazing, and probably a much better choice for the current user base. Also, the temptation with high-end lenses always remains, if not because of resolution, then because of color or rendering.

[WPRESTO]

I hope we wont go deep into a megapixel discussion here, but if you haven't already heard the reasons for fewer megapixels on chip, here is a few:

- Better dynamic range (only relevant to raw photographers)
- Less storage space / more images per GB (only relevant to raw photographers, unless we get a pixel binned raw mode)
- Potentially faster burst shooting, more images in the buffer, fewer Mp to process means better battery capacity (# images) and faster post processing
- Less "need"/temptation for huge, heavy and expensive, super sharp lenses

Some of these points can be partially improved by using the APS-C raw mode, but then you might be better of with a APS-C camera from the start.

Also: It seems generally agreed that fewer larger pixels have less noise at high ISO and in low light conditions. If such this is true, then fewer larger pixels would improve IQ for many photographers in a wide range of situations.

[rgknief60]

Yes, if you're a JPEG shooter. ☺

I believe that there is an option for a 15MP raw file in crop mode as well. That will make a smaller filesize than the 36MP raw file, but still a decent 4800x3200 pixels with the advantages of raw processing.

[Kunzite]

How about the wider range of situations, when one would shoot at low or moderate ISO?

[stillshot2]

Yes, if you're a JPEG shooter. ☺

So you cannot takes photos in RAW using the entire sensor at the smaller 15mp size?