[asw66]

I'm not an engineer but ...

It seems to me that it would be a relatively trivial task to release a Pro version of the K-1 that's exactly the same as the current model, but includes deeper buffers for faster burst shooting. This will come in at a higher price point naturally, but it would attract/retain those shooters that really want that feature and are willing to pay for it.

---------- Post added 05-14-2017 at 03:03 PM ----------

I guess there's someone in this big world using a $50000 Hasselblad to take snaps of his lunch and post them on Facebook. But those are exceptions.

A few years ago I found a Japanese guy on flickr who was using a Leica to shoot utterly humdrum pictures of his wife. It was a long time before he even starting playing with DoF or anything. But each of his photos got plenty of likes, because Leica.

[photoptimist]

I'm not an engineer but ...

It seems to me that it would be a relatively trivial task to release a Pro version of the K-1 that's exactly the same as the current model, but includes deeper buffers for faster burst shooting. This will come in at a higher price point naturally, but it would attract/retain those shooters that really want that feature and are willing to pay for it.[COLOR="Silver"]

Frame rate is limited by the sensor design in most cameras. For a given sensor, one can tune it for a faster frame rate but it decreases the dynamic range and increases the power requirements.

Deeper buffers would enable longer bursts but not faster ones. Deeper buffers also draw more power which could lessen shots per charge, increase the chance of lock-ups when the battery is not 100% fresh, and potentially require a complete redesign with a larger battery.

[Uluru]

That looks very expensive to me. They still need to upgrade the af-mode since it can only handle like 4 fps on af-c in tracking. At the same price as K-1 I don't see them sell many of these models with just aps-c.

Considering that the K-1 is of the speed of a Polaroid camera, I think that it does makes sense to make a new category of DSLR cameras with greater speed and responsiveness that may answer to mirrorless challenge. Pentax has no contender there, not even K3II. Not to mention that cameras like the GH5 have more fps in stills, take 4K and 6K videos and pull out pictures from them with no time limit.

That speed is insane compared to average DSLRs. There is not too many roads to go for the crop DSLRs, and to Pentax, the road is dictated by its peers: either go D500 way, which I doubt Ricoh Imaging can do (because they have no higher tier from where they can re-use such DSLR tech), or do something else.

I suggest something else – reinvent the category. If that is not possible, then continue playing with the SR mechanism as usual, and be old-school camera company. SR was the only field where they made new ideas with it, real difference between current cameras and cameras of 5 years ago, because, I guess, it doesn't cost anything.

[asw66]

Frame rate is limited by the sensor design in most cameras. For a given sensor, one can tune it for a faster frame rate but it decreases the dynamic range and increases the power requirements.

Deeper buffers would enable longer bursts but not faster ones. Deeper buffers also draw more power which could lessen shots per charge, increase the chance of lock-ups when the battery is not 100% fresh, and potentially require a complete redesign with a larger battery.

Great explanation, thanks!

Pentax traditionally ekes out better dynamic range from its sensors than just about anyone else, which is one of the things I really value about the brand. So I'll trade a bit of burst speed for dynamic range, for sure.

[Rondec]

Frame rate is limited by the sensor design in most cameras. For a given sensor, one can tune it for a faster frame rate but it decreases the dynamic range and increases the power requirements.

Deeper buffers would enable longer bursts but not faster ones. Deeper buffers also draw more power which could lessen shots per charge, increase the chance of lock-ups when the battery is not 100% fresh, and potentially require a complete redesign with a larger battery.

I wonder. The K-1 can shoot 6 fps in crop mode, so certainly the shutter should be OK to that speed and probably the sensor as well. It has always felt to me more like Pentax just didn't want the buffer to fill up too quickly and so they limited the frame rate in full frame mode.

Maybe you're right and the K-1 would lock up if you dropped an extra gig or two of memory on it, but it doesn't seem like it would be expensive -- it would just make it take a full minute or two to clear the buffer when you finally did stop shooting.

[Kunzite]

The K-1's mechanics are definitely good for over 6fps (about 6.5). We know this because this level of performance is reached in APS-C crop mode.
However, the reason why it can't shoot at 6.5fps in full frame mode (or 1:1 crop, which is also transferring the full image) is because of the sensor readout. No camera equipped with the 36MP sensor can shoot significantly faster.

[RonHendriks1966]

I had the Olympus om-d-e-m-mk-ii in my hands today with a decent lens. Well that is a fast machine. The sensor is smaller, but it can rattle faster then I have seen before. It has a 18 fps mode (wich is a little slower in test) and also a full read-out 60 fps mode in wich it is silent. It clear the buffer fast, but with 12-bit raw (probably not more in it with the smaller sensor).

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-iiA6.HTM

That is something that needs serious investment in all ways, from sensor, read-out, processing, buffer and storing. Pentax is not moving in that direction.

[photoptimist]

I had the Olympus om-d-e-m-mk-ii in my hands today with a decent lens. Well that is a fast machine. The sensor is smaller, but it can rattle faster then I have seen before. It has a 18 fps mode (wich is a little slower in test) and also a full read-out 60 fps mode in wich it is silent. It clear the buffer fast, but with 12-bit raw (probably not more in it with the smaller sensor).

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-iiA6.HTM

That is something that needs serious investment in all ways, from sensor, read-out, processing, buffer and storing. Pentax is not moving in that direction.

That speed advantage is a direct result of the smaller sensor. Even if the pixel counts are the same, the physics of big sensors makes them slower to read. Moreover, Olympus also has a speed advantage in only trying to get 12 bit data.

There are technological solutions around the challenges of fast and low-noise reading of large sensors. A great example is Sony's stacked BSI sensor in the A9 but such chips are much more expensive (hence the price tag on the A9).

---------- Post added 05-14-17 at 02:35 PM ----------

I wonder. The K-1 can shoot 6 fps in crop mode, so certainly the shutter should be OK to that speed and probably the sensor as well. It has always felt to me more like Pentax just didn't want the buffer to fill up too quickly and so they limited the frame rate in full frame mode.

Maybe you're right and the K-1 would lock up if you dropped an extra gig or two of memory on it, but it doesn't seem like it would be expensive -- it would just make it take a full minute or two to clear the buffer when you finally did stop shooting.

As Kunzite notes, the K-1 is in the same burst rate class as the Nikon D800 and D810. It seems likely that the 36 MPix Sony sensor used in all those cameras can't go much faster.

You are right that more RAM would be cheap. And I honestly don't know how close the K-1 comes to hitting the amperage limits of the current battery. But there's also another side effect of adding more buffer -- customers would be even more unhappy with UHS-I level of performance of the SD slots. And upgrading the SD slots of the K-1 to full UHS-II would double the power requirement for that subsystem. Ever decision to improve performance in one area risks consequences and performance loss in other areas.

I don't envy the job the Pentax engineers. They face a lot of hard choices in creating a camera within all the constraints and expectations of customers on size, cost, DR, speed, battery life, reliability, etc.

[Rondec]

Sure. I am not particularly arguing that they should hit a higher frame rate. Four frames a second at 36 megapixels is a lot of data to process. But, the biggest complaint from my wife when shooting weddings is that she hits the buffer pretty fast -- faster since she is writing RAW images to both cards -- and it takes quite awhile to clear. I shoot landscapes and for the most part, I could deal with 1 frame a second or some such number as the stuff I am shooting doesn't move a whole lot and I have plenty of time to set up and wait for the sun to rise, etc.

[mecrox]

I had the Olympus om-d-e-m-mk-ii in my hands today with a decent lens. Well that is a fast machine. The sensor is smaller, but it can rattle faster then I have seen before. It has a 18 fps mode (wich is a little slower in test) and also a full read-out 60 fps mode in wich it is silent. It clear the buffer fast, but with 12-bit raw (probably not more in it with the smaller sensor).

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-iiA6.HTM

That is something that needs serious investment in all ways, from sensor, read-out, processing, buffer and storing. Pentax is not moving in that direction.

The Olympus is a machine-gun action camera with twin quadcore processors. Great for those who do actually need that performance, but complete overkill for most people and anyway the M43 sensor likely cannot hold a candle to the K1 class of camera when it comes to landscape with good DR and higher ISO and lower light performance. Horses for courses. What may be valuable I guess is the expertise gained in mating that amount of processing power to the "imaging pipeline", so to speak, and the AF system and then managing all the very difficult stuff involving power draw, heat, current, etc. With luck that expertise will then find its way into less costly cameras tuned for more general and less demanding uses. Maybe the lesson if any is that with each new generation of camera, expertise in software and managing sophisticated but also demanding processing power becomes steadily more important.

[johnmflores]

That speed advantage is a direct result of the smaller sensor. Even if the pixel counts are the same, the physics of big sensors makes them slower to read.

Do you have anything to support that assertion?

[mee]

The K-1's mechanics are definitely good for over 6fps (about 6.5). We know this because this level of performance is reached in APS-C crop mode.
However, the reason why it can't shoot at 6.5fps in full frame mode (or 1:1 crop, which is also transferring the full image) is because of the sensor readout. No camera equipped with the 36MP sensor can shoot significantly faster.

Doesn't the D810 hit 6 fps in 1.2x mode? I think 7 fps with the oem grip..

That would be nice on the K-1 if possible.. plus 1.2x crop mode would probably benefit a lot of DA lenses... almost a pseudo APS-H mode.

[Uluru]

Great explanation, thanks!
Pentax traditionally ekes out better dynamic range from its sensors than just about anyone else, which is one of the things I really value about the brand. So I'll trade a bit of burst speed for dynamic range, for sure.

I don't think it is so simple an explanation.
Real question is how much of difference is visible in everyday circumstances.

Today's KP uses a newer crop sensor tech that an FF from the K-1. But compare the KP with what Sony does with same sensor in Sony a6000. Let's ask valid questions:

1. Do we think KP's 7fps versus A6000's 11fps helps KP be better in image quality? I don't think so — 7fps is limitation set by the mirror. We have no proof 11 fps would degrade it.

2. Is mere 8 RAWs in burst mode enabling KP to deliver such great quality, and say, 32 RAWs would degrade the output? I don't think so: I/O speed has to do with limitations set by Ricoh Imaging, visible from the K-1. That is, the manufacturer reiterates lots of old tech that is not capable of certain performance. Why? To keep the cost down, and the KP was limited too — if the flagship is the K3II, already 3.5 years old tech, Ricoh Imaging limited the KP to be below the K3II speed level, so that it appears K3II is still the flagship. It is like throwing a camera waaay back in time — common mistake made by Canon, Nikon and Ricoh Imaging when issuing "entry" and "mid-level" cameras. And one of reasons mirrorless parties appear to be faster in leaping over them. Because they do not make same mistakes!

I think that strategy is unfair to the KP, to be so deliberately crippled, at levels that precede K3II development! Pentax team should look at mirrorless peers and what they do, not what Nikon does. If the KP had K3II's buffer, it would have much wider audience today. Time moves fast in this industry, there are no excuses for crippling down basic functionality of a camera anymore, which are getting redefined daily. DSLRs are about speed too.

That is my open complaint about, otherwise, excellent cameras. K-1 and KP were made deliberately slow for no plausible engineering reason — only for the sake of their marketing position. Both could share already available tech from the K3II. In that regard, bad design choices. They could sell more critical cameras like K-1 and KP with better memory and I/O speed specs.

[Rondec]

Do you have anything to support that assertion?

It sure seems like it is more expensive to get a fast read out speed from a full frame sensor. 24 megapixel cheap full frames tend to have relatively slow frame rates of about 6 fps, while the speedy ones like the A9 and D5 and 1D series are all super expensive. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that go into that cost equation, but it seems as though cheaper full frame sensors just have slower read out speeds. The D500 and D5 are priced at 1800 and 6000 dollars respectively. True, the D5 does do 12 fps versus only 10 fps for the D500, but that's still quite a price difference between the crop and full frame cameras that are supposed to be sports cameras.

But I'm not an engineer nor the son of one, so take that with a grain of salt. Maybe it is actually cheaper to make full frame sensors with fast read out speeds, the brands just choose to charge more for them.

[photoptimist]

Do you have anything to support that assertion?

It's from integrated circuit engineering: the capacitance of the traces running from the edge of the chip to the pixels grows as the chip grows in size. It's a matter of the RC time constant of the circuit. If the number of pixels is constant, the length of the traces grows (worse resistance) but the width of the traces grows too (less resistance) so the R term can stay the same. But if the traces are twice as long and twice as wide in FF vs. M43, the capacitance is 4X higher, the time constant is 2X higher and it takes twice as long for each analog pixel signal level to drain to the analog-to-digital convertor. (The effect also poses challenges for the clock circuits and the amount of power required to send high speed clock signals across the full width of the chip along with the, the interference effects from those higher powered signals.)