[Nicolas06]

Yes, it would require a new sensor. Don't you think its plausible that the next FF and APS-C top models will get newer sensors? Its happened before and could happen again. The pricing of the top APS-C camera have usually been the same or shifted slightly down, compared to its predecessors launch prise, even if the newer model got a newer sensor. Why do you think a new sensor would be quite a bit more expensive? And why should Pentax be limited to re-use sensors that already sits in older cameras? Pentax may choose a sensor thats not implemented in any camera yet. Pentax could be the first too.

I hope next APSC would get that BSI sensor on A6300 so it would be areal improvement toward 3 year old K3. But I don't know if we would get that or the K70 sensor on the next APSC flagship. It depend if Sony accept to sell the sensor to Pentax and if Pentax accept to pay for it to advertise great video, very high burst rate and cleaner high iso.

On FF, there clearly at least 2 types of FF. FF optimized for max resolution, dynamic range etc like D810 and K1. and FF optimized for action/sports with far less resolution. It doesn't look like we will get a 50MP FF with 15FPS soon. While the next sensor will be different, I'd not except very high FPS on it if it have huge resolution. And if the resolution is sometwhat low, it could be argued that you want both pixel shift and high pixel count to work with anyway.

[D1N0]

I hope next APSC would get that BSI sensor on A6300

It's not bsi it is regular cmos (Exmor) cmos+bsi is Exmor R.

[Rondec]

Yes, it would require a new sensor. Don't you think its plausible that the next FF and APS-C top models will get newer sensors? Its happened before and could happen again. The pricing of the top APS-C camera have usually been the same or shifted slightly down, compared to its predecessors launch prise, even if the newer model got a newer sensor. Why do you think a new sensor would be quite a bit more expensive? And why should Pentax be limited to re-use sensors that already sits in older cameras? Pentax may choose a sensor thats not implemented in any camera yet. Pentax could be the first too.

Oh, I think they will get a new sensor. It is just that the cost of the sports cameras that have been mentioned in this thread is astronomical. Price of APS-C cameras with similar specifications is less than half, although still pretty pricey. Feels more likely that a K3 sequel could hit 10 fps with adequate processing power to take care of 3 or 4 seconds of frames.

[Simen1]

I don't think the sensor price is what drives the cost up. Sports cameras have in general expensive AF modules that are costly to develop and its not that many cameras sold to share the development costs, compared to low end FF. Sports cameras also have higher built quality, larger battery, very high processing power and huge memory buffers. They are also tested to higher tolerances and usually made in Japan, not Thailand, China and so on. Pentax don't need to (and shouldn't) go in C/N footsteps. If they make a K-1 successor with a D5 sensor it don't need to have all the other features and cost of D5.

Sony are of course constantly developing better sensors. So far it looks like several different lines. 16-21 Mp high speed for D4/D5-series. 20-24 Mp low speed series, and 36-42 Mp high resolution series. There have been some rumors about a 30-32 Mp compromise between high speed and high resolution that might come out soon.

[reh321]

I don't think the sensor price is what drives the cost up. Sports cameras have in general expensive AF modules that are costly to develop and its not that many cameras sold to share the development costs, compared to low end FF. Sports cameras also have higher built quality, larger battery, very high processing power and huge memory buffers. They are also tested to higher tolerances and usually made in Japan, not Thailand, China and so on. Pentax don't need to (and shouldn't) go in C/N footsteps. If they make a K-1 successor with a D5 sensor it don't need to have all the other features and cost of D5.

We seem to disagree here. Now that Pentax has the K-1, they have less reason to aim the "Flagship APS-C" line at landscape photography, and so it will be natural for them to aim it at sports / events; they don't need all of the D5 capabilities, but simply expanding on what the K-70 has started could lead to a true "dynamic duo", the K-70 for amateur sports/events, and the K-3ii followup for the real thing.

[Nicolas06]

I don't think the sensor price is what drives the cost up. Sports cameras have in general expensive AF modules that are costly to develop and its not that many cameras sold to share the development costs, compared to low end FF. Sports cameras also have higher built quality, larger battery, very high processing power and huge memory buffers. They are also tested to higher tolerances and usually made in Japan, not Thailand, China and so on. Pentax don't need to (and shouldn't) go in C/N footsteps. If they make a K-1 successor with a D5 sensor it don't need to have all the other features and cost of D5.

Sony are of course constantly developing better sensors. So far it looks like several different lines. 16-21 Mp high speed for D4/D5-series. 20-24 Mp low speed series, and 36-42 Mp high resolution series. There have been some rumors about a 30-32 Mp compromise between high speed and high resolution that might come out soon.

A D5 is basically a D500 with an FF sensor. Still the price difference is huge.

[Simen1]

Its much about strategic pricing too. If they can sell it with a huge profit, they will.

[Nicolas06]

Its much about strategic pricing too. If they can sell it with a huge profit, they will.

But this strategy likely also include their sensor provider

[Rondec]

I don't think the sensor price is what drives the cost up. Sports cameras have in general expensive AF modules that are costly to develop and its not that many cameras sold to share the development costs, compared to low end FF. Sports cameras also have higher built quality, larger battery, very high processing power and huge memory buffers. They are also tested to higher tolerances and usually made in Japan, not Thailand, China and so on. Pentax don't need to (and shouldn't) go in C/N footsteps. If they make a K-1 successor with a D5 sensor it don't need to have all the other features and cost of D5.

Sony are of course constantly developing better sensors. So far it looks like several different lines. 16-21 Mp high speed for D4/D5-series. 20-24 Mp low speed series, and 36-42 Mp high resolution series. There have been some rumors about a 30-32 Mp compromise between high speed and high resolution that might come out soon.

I have a hard time knowing what Canon and Nikon could do if they want. Are the sensors in cameras like the 1D series and D5 actually a lot more expensive, is it that all of the other components that end up in a sports type camera are also really expensive, is it that these cameras actually sell relatively small quantities and the only way to make a profit is price them really high, or is it just that this segment of the market has always been priced high and sports photographers don't blink at paying astronomical prices for gear? Whatever the case I think these sensors do not provide any particular benefit over the 36 megapixel sensor that Pentax is using, except for better video and faster frame rates. Dynamic range is actually less at low iso values with these. For general photography purposes, the K-1 is probably a better choice than a camera like the D5.

[Logics]

That's because the "workflow" has to deal with 4x the data and has to guess which pixels did change.

Not exactly. Without pixel-shift, (PS), each RAW pixel has 14-bits of data representing the intensity of only one colour at that pixel. With PS, each RAW pixel has 56 bits of data recorded representing the intensity of RGBG, (the green value sampled twice). This is then converted into a 42-bit pixel by disregarding one of the redundant green values and thus stored. If there were only three pixel shifts, a pixel initially blue would capture blue, green, red, while a pixel which was initially red would capture red, green blue. The problem are pixels which were initially green; three shifts would capture green, blue, green or green, red, green. A fourth shift would capture the missing red or blue value respectively. So now you have an image of three four times the data (ignoring overhead, insignificantly less considering overhead).

I also believe (but I am not sure) that the 42-bit pixel is actually further reduced to a 24-bit or 28-bit pixel in a (10,14) or (14,14) bit matrix of (intensity, colour) or an (8,8,8) or (12,12,12) bit (R,G,B) matrix. This may make far more sense since a PS image is not three times the file size of a non-shifted image.

However, there is significantly less processing to be done because there is no issue of blocks, maze nor coloured moire artefacts with which to mitigate with the various bayer transform approximation (BTA) algorithms. Indeed, with any given BTA algorithm, one is actually computing more data because with every pixel, one may have to deal with the data of a minimum of four neighbouring colours and as many as sixteen, each having 14-bits of data. That is a minimum of 56 bits per pixel and up to 224 bits per pixel. With the full colour, full luminance information of each pixel, none of that extra processing of neighbouring pixels is needed.

And, no, there aren't any “changed” pixel. Each pixel is accurately recorded.

The immense success of the Bayer pattern has to do with its efficient "workflow", needing much less original data for the same perceived image quality.

Again, it is not for the same perceived image quality. It is for a far superior image quality with more detail and less noise and no artefacts. And unless you treat your mostly monotone, low contrast, simple scene the exact same way (same algorithm) you treat your high contrast, multi colour transition, complex scenes, the BTA workflow is far from efficient. This is what PS reduces.

The real merit of pixel-shift is an absolute better image quality at the pixel-level than a single capture with a Bayer filter could provide.

True: better image quality in terms of colour accuracy, luminance accuracy, (ergo details), noise reduction, artefact reduction, etc., all reducing the effort needed in the workflow.

Well, pixel shift the way Pentax does it and not the way Sony does it. They actually do pixel shift quite differently and the Sony method does in fact create an image of four times the resolution —a 20mp image becomes an 80mp image— while the Pentax method starts and ends with a 24mp or 36mp (K-3 II or K-1) image respectively.

[CORRECTIONS]

Handling of a 130mb image is not really an issue if your computer can handle it. (I currently have 32GiB RAM and about 5TB HDD space for data plus eSATA III and USB 3.0). It may mean more time in importing or running standard scripts on each image but the same added time exists when going from a 6mp workflow to a 24mp workflow. The complexity of the workflow however decreases.

[Nicolas06]

Again, it is not for the same perceived image quality. It is for a far superior image quality with more detail and less noise and no artefacts. And unless you treat your mostly monotone, low contrast, simple scene the exact same way (same algorithm) you treat your high contrast, multi colour transition, complex scenes, the BTA workflow is far from efficient. This is what PS reduces.

In theory that may be true. In practice... Most people will never see the difference outside of looking at 100% crops.

More, you don't especially need pixel shift to achieve theses results or even better.

Dynamic range, all camera I think have a HDR mode anyway that allow for much more dynamic range than what pixel shift allow, this work handled even. At worst shoot 3 or 5 exposure and you can get 4 or 8 EV more of dynamic range. That much more that pixel shift provide.

For Color deph and noise, nothing prevent you to take 4 pictures (or 32) on your tripod and stack them for improved quality. People have been doing that for astro shots for years. While it is not as automated, any camera firmware could be updated for it. And because there no limit to number of photos, there no limit to the noise reduction and improved color deph.

Do a panorama, and you can scale the resolution without limit. Some people have produced gigapixels photographs this way.

I agree that for some case pixel shift is simpler/easier and provide nice results, but this is not a game changer. This is just a feature like many others.

[Rondec]

In theory that may be true. In practice... Most people will never see the difference outside of looking at 100% crops.

More, you don't especially need pixel shift to achieve theses results or even better.

Dynamic range, all camera I think have a HDR mode anyway that allow for much more dynamic range than what pixel shift allow, this work handled even. At worst shoot 3 or 5 exposure and you can get 4 or 8 EV more of dynamic range. That much more that pixel shift provide.

For Color deph and noise, nothing prevent you to take 4 pictures (or 32) on your tripod and stack them for improved quality. People have been doing that for astro shots for years. While it is not as automated, any camera firmware could be updated for it. And because there no limit to number of photos, there no limit to the noise reduction and improved color deph.

Do a panorama, and you can scale the resolution without limit. Some people have produced gigapixels photographs this way.

I agree that for some case pixel shift is simpler/easier and provide nice results, but this is not a game changer. This is just a feature like many others.

I don't know what "game changer" means in this context. I would just say that in my experience pixel shift is a lot easier to use than shooting panoramas and gives better results than shooting HDR -- by better, I mean it gives more natural looking results. I don't need more than 36 megapixels of data, but having a mode that increase color depth and dynamic range while reducing noise to zero is pretty nice. My goal is to have a really high quality image file to start with that I can then process in a way that fits my vision. HDR modes and HDR software don't usually do this very well.

Anyway, the mode is present on the K3 II and by downloading the most recent version of DCU, if you own a K3 II, you can use motion correction on your RAW files.

[Zygonyx]

Interesting, i didn't know this was OK on K-3II.

[Dan Rentea]

I don't know what "game changer" means in this context. I would just say that in my experience pixel shift is a lot easier to use than shooting panoramas and gives better results than shooting HDR -- by better, I mean it gives more natural looking results. I don't need more than 36 megapixels of data, but having a mode that increase color depth and dynamic range while reducing noise to zero is pretty nice. My goal is to have a really high quality image file to start with that I can then process in a way that fits my vision. HDR modes and HDR software don't usually do this very well.

Anyway, the mode is present on the K3 II and by downloading the most recent version of DCU, if you own a K3 II, you can use motion correction on your RAW files.

For some photographers (especially for the ones who print large sized images), pixel shift can be a game changer. I much prefer pixel shift than HDR if I have to choose between these two options, although I'm not in the category of the ones who needs pixel shift (or HDR).

On the other hand, D5/D500 can fine-tune autofocus automatically, option which I would really love to see in the future cameras because I often use rented lenses.

The expression game changer is so easily used these days for almost every new camera launched. It's true that every manufacturer come with some new functions on their new cameras, but I haven't seen a game changer camera for a while... The DSLR market has become mature and innovations come in small packages. But, let's see what Photokina brings next month.

[Nicolas06]

Game changer is something that will heavilly change the market, how people use their camera, approach photography as a whole. This is disruptive product.

First iphone was a game changer it redefined the whole industry and now 3/4 of all the phones sold are basically iphones clones. Android was game changer because it allowed to get iphones clones for $100.

In photography, smartphones were maybe the biggest change we have seen since digital but we also had seen quite big change that can be arguably a game changer: CMOS vs CCD, cameras with great video or mirrorless bodies with EVF. That changes that shaped the market.

Pixel shift is just a feature among the hundred other features each camera has. Is it far better than a 50 iso setting? Is it better than a high burst rate or better OOC Jpegs? This will depend of each user but this isn't huge. Give a D810 or a K1 with the equivalent lenses to a good photographer he'll give you quite similar photographs from both. The biggest difference is the mount with the associated echosystem.