Originally posted by zapp Let's not compare specs too much, we don't even know the full story of the K1 and the new lens roadmap. That said, (1) be aware that you can buy right now a lot of high-end glass for you Nikon not available for Pentax. (2) The K1 system must convince people not a K1-ii in two years time. K5-ii and K3-ii did not solve shortcomings of the original model. The difference in pixel count between 24 and 36 MP is marginal. 24 MP should have better high ISO performance and 36 MP has a small edge in resolution GIVEN that you have lenses that work with 36 MP (and your technique should also be high-end).
Here we disagree on most things
- 24M with low pass filter vs 36MP without low pass filter and pixel shift is for me huge difference in sharpness. This would be 30-40% higher MTF figures without pixel shift. Same difference as 6 vs 12MP because of the low pass filter. With pixel shift combined, you are at MF levels and no FF will match. A bit like like 6MP vs 24MP. Might only count for huge print, and might not be necessary in most cases, but this rule out D750 for this kind of practice.
- D750 vs D810 performance in high iso is very similar under the error margin... Even if I check at say 6400 iso, there no visible difference in measurements. 36MP is not a problem. Noticably A7-II 24MP and D600 24MP have worse high iso performance than their 36MP counterpart (A7R-II and D800).
- K1 is already great even if the AF is not improved at all just from being FF 36MP and all the other stuff (SR, pixel shift, superior ergonomics, build quality...). The question is more will it be the camera of the year taking the whole market because AF-C is great, or just a great camera.
- In both case a refresh with a -II in Pentax tradition is good marketing move. It allow to correct a few things, bump prices and get some sales. In all case, I would expect AF-C to be 100% fixed by that time, meaning there would be no argument for a Canikon.