[photoptimist]

Storing signal of 16, 32 or whatever number of bit is easy. Encoding too. Then where you have a point is that to store more photons, you need photosites with more capacity that would return a stronger signal and that costly. This is exactly what you explained in different words. Nikon paid to go to iso 64... And because it is hard is the reason why they didn't go to iso iso 10 or iso 1.

Please notice that we start to have alternatives. Newer Sony sensors bundle memory with the sensor. If there a memory cell for each photosite, then you could just as well count of many time the photosite filled up. That would give you iso as low as you want with unlimited dynamic range as long as the exposure is long enough. A multi exposure shots like pixel shift or HDR is just a variation of that idea but not automated up to the photosite level, that all.

I heard there prototypes about that. I agree we never seen one in reality but if your ask for more than 14EV of dynamic range, MF cameras offer just that and I think that the 645Z managed signficantly more than the best FF and some MF rawa re using 16bit per channel for that reason.

Yes, there's lots of room for innovation in sensors and BSI lets the sensor designer put some amount of circuitry with each pixel without affecting the pixel's basic light-sensing performance (the circuits are printed on top of the pixels but then the chip is flipped over and ground down to expose the photosensitive regions). My guess is that each pixel could have hundreds of transistors per pixels but there may not be enough room for a high-bit-depth ADC is not clear given the need for passive components and larger analog signal transistors).

The "count-the-overflows" concept looks especially intriguing for HDR and ISO-less imaging but will almost certainly lead to sensors with very complex properties and unusual behavior. For example, limits on the speed and accuracy of the overflow counter will probably limit it to slower shutter speeds. Maybe at shutter speeds of 1/1000 or faster, the ISO would be 100. But at shutter speeds of 1 second or slower, an ISO of 1 might be possible. Such a sensor would also interact very poorly with short-duration photo flashes or other flickering light sources (such as some HSS flashes and LED lights) because the pixel would almost certainly show vastly different sensitivity to light during accumulation versus light that happened to fall on the pixel during an overflow-reset. If some pixels are reseting at the exact instant the flash goes off, they would probably not see the flash.

[beholder3]

There is only a small problem... where to fit the folding circuitry on the sensor without reducing effective sensor area.

Yes. It's as simple as that. And this trivial problem is also the main reason why we still do not have electronic global shutters but have to stick to age old mechanical devices for ILC.

Global shutter sensors have been sucessfully made for years and they could easily put it into ILC. But: The additional circuitry reduces the space for light gathering.

This 3 year old article here provides an intersting read: Global shutter image sensors | Solid State Technology

[normhead]

Ricoh has been buying older technology sensors. The 36MP in the K-1 is based on the same generation of sensor technology as the K-5. Ricoh is obviously getting excellent results from these sensors in terms of still photography. None of the cameras that use the older Sony 36MP sensor do well at video because that sensor isn't fast enough. That is also why all of the cameras with that sensor have rather slow CDAF.

Everything about 4K is standard. Its all hardware related so there is not a lot to develop for other than the camera firmware. Sony has developed 2 FF sensors with good 4K video. One is in the 12MP A7s and the other is in the 42MP A7rII. When the 42MP sensor becomes cheap enough, Ricoh will probably start using it. I think 8K broadcasting will be coming to Japan next year, and Dell is now shipping 8K monitors. In 3-5 years 8K will be as common and 4K is now. That is probably when we will see a K-mount camera with decent 4K support.

Ricoh is obviously not spending money on the newest sensor, fastest memory/biggest buffer or other support technologies like USB3.0 or SDXC UHS-II.

That what I like about them.

[Kunzite]

On the other site - the one starting with DP and being about Reviews - there's a new page for the D850 review - investigating ISO invariance and DR. They're comparing with medium format - the Fuji - and things are looking good.
I then selected the K-1 instead of the Fuji MF.

[normhead]

On the other site - the one starting with DP and being about Reviews - there's a new page for the D850 review - investigating ISO invariance and DR. They're comparing with medium format - the Fuji - and things are looking good.
I then selected the K-1 instead of the Fuji MF.

A quick comparison at Imaging Resources which also has their D850 images up, shows the K-1 and D850 about equal at 6400, and both look useable. At 12,800 the D850 looks better than the K-1 but both look un-useable... from a close comparison at full size, the D850 is better at high ISO but there is no practical advantage to me as a photographer, As to when an images becomes un-useable, 6400 is the last ƒ-stop I would use for either. The 850 produces better un-useable images... weird.

It appears to me the advantage to this camera is the speed of the internal processes, which could be useful, but for many users is just something they won't want to pay for.

[Kunzite]

Yes, and it's an important advantage - as you say, if you're willing to pay the price.
I'm just musing on how the K-1 is still very much actual, in its area of expertise. It's not even using the latest Pentax technologies (the accelerator thing from the K-70 and KP).

[normhead]

Yes, and it's an important advantage - as you say, if you're willing to pay the price.
I'm just musing on how the K-1 is still very much actual, in its area of expertise. It's not even using the latest Pentax technologies (the accelerator thing from the K-70 and KP).

I bought a Nikon Coolpix 130 AW that I got for a good price to replace my Optio 90 W. IThe Coolpix is 16, MP, backlit sensor, supposed to be the best IQ out there for a waterproof shockproof camera, I prefer the IQ from my Option 90W st 12 MP even though it spent 3 months out in the weather part of it underwater. I dried it out and apart from losing the time and date when I change batteries it works fine. The images are just better. I'm going to be using 8 year old Pentax gear instead of current Nikon gear. One of the reviewers refused to even test the current WG because the FPS was still one frame every 1.5 seconds and it basically hadn't improved since the last model (it''s like a WG-3 or 4 now). So what does all that improved tech mean? To me it means nothing. It's all about the pictures, and we don't like the pictures. They can go on forever about what's inside and how it works. The day that image is loaded onto my hard drive, all that is meaningless. Then it's all about the images, and the images have to be up to scratch.

Looking at the images from the D850, I feel the same. There's not $1000 dollars worth of improvement there in imagery, (there's' not $10 worth of improvement in the imagery) and really that's all I'm willing to pay for. I'd still be using my K-20D if the images were up to scratch.

And for what I shoot for wildlife, many of my images are taken at 8 FPS so my K-3 is still better. You can try and convince me I need 42 MP for my bird images that I never blow up beyond 5x7 but I'm not buying it. And for landscape, the D850 offers nothing practical. Anyone who'd shoots a landscape (or anything) at 12,800 ISO where it might make a difference is so different from me I have no clue what they are doing or thinking.

And folks call me a "fanboy" because if I'm going to pay more, I want better images. It's not like I'm not trying to like other companies, and my spending proves it, but they keep letting me down.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-12-2017 at 08:36 AM.

[redpit]

The D850 seems to be a fantastic all around camera, since it can do all kind of photography very well! @normhead you needn't take any crop sensored camera for your birds if you own a D850 and that is impressive too (I still don't get it how they have packed the 810 the 500 and D5 in there and expect anyone to buy anything else than the 850)!

I'm sure about D850 is a great camera as sure am I that my K-1 is a great camera too and does the job for me superbly! As I also seek for the best IQ I can buy, I'm also quite convinced that the K-1 won't fall behind the 850 or the competition in general, at many circumstances, on the contrary at low ISO it excels as we already know.

There is one sector though that the 850 can easily beat my K-1 and that is glass. For what I shoot the longer (/brighter) is quite often the better and when 450mm are not enough I will envy my friends carrying the long glass on their Canonikons, but that's all!

What amuses me is that I'm sure only Pentax can beat the 850 when (if) they get this sensor! (Pixel shift from 46Mpxl! Almost scary!)

What ruins my day is that I know Pentax can make great lenses too (DFA 150-450 and DFA*70-200 being 2 of the latest examples) and it has created engineering masterpieces in the past (not so long ago) like the FA*250-600/5.6 which modernizing it and releasing it again it would put lenses like the Sigma 150-600 into shame and would create impact in the market. The same impact that the K-1 created. And I read a lot of... funny things in here about the K-1 not being a success or not having turned the tide to Pentax, but I know from my fellow photographers that it has put Pentax back in the map for many that didn't know it could still make top notch products.

Anyway I would like to say many more things, but I will leave it here. The D850 will sell very well (except if any faults come up) but mainly amongst the Nikonians. People are not willing to jump ship every time a great product comes up... that doesn't change the fact though it is great camera and it's release surely made a lot of noise...

PS: I've said it many times and I will repeat it once more, all those Nikon users out there should be grateful to Pentax because the K-1 and after that the Sony expanding market share are the reasons they can buy such a camera @$3300. If smaller companies disappear the prices of the Casonikons will skyrocket.

[normhead]

@normhead you needn't take any crop sensored camera for your birds if you own a D850 and that is impressive too

You still take a resolution hit. You have to get to 51 MP before the K-3 doesn't have an advantage.

[biz-engineer]

You still take a resolution hit. You have to get to 51 MP before the K-3 doesn't have an advantage.

Same for macro photography, while investigating a bit for what I like and dislike about macro, I came to the conclusion that high density sensor is best for macro shots. Usually for macro, DoF is a problem when getting closer and closer to the subject, on full frame stop the lens down to f22+ or need to take multiple shots with focus stepping on a tripod to get the subject in focus, that is not practical when hiking in nature, sometimes we go on a hike and we don't carry a tripod. One of the thing I preferred with the K3, the ability to get 24Mp with the 1.5x additional "magnification", with the K3 I could even take pseudo macro shots without using a macro lens and still have some room to crop, that's not the case with the K1 anymore. So, I might get again an apsc body if Ricoh makes a K3 successor.

[ffking]

Same for macro photography, while investigating a bit for what I like and dislike about macro, I came to the conclusion that high density sensor is best for macro shots. Usually for macro, DoF is a problem when getting closer and closer to the subject, on full frame stop the lens down to f22+ or need to take multiple shots with focus stepping on a tripod to get the subject in focus, that is not practical when hiking in nature, sometimes we go on a hike and we don't carry a tripod. One of the thing I preferred with the K3, the ability to get 24Mp with the 1.5x additional "magnification", with the K3 I could even take pseudo macro shots without using a macro lens and still have some room to crop, that's not the case with the K1 anymore. So, I might get again an apsc body if Ricoh makes a K3 successor.

Absolutely - the K-3 is my total go-to macro camera and my usual wildlife camera. I use the K1 for everything else (except when I need more range out of my telephotos).

[richard0170]

Who needs all this massive resolution? Not the big majority of us. Nikon dropped down to 20MP for its d500 and d7500. The 24mp of my K3 is plenty for a hobbyist. What I would love to see from Pentax is a camera with with the K3's resolution, and decent B&W output. My Ricoh GRiv, when I had it and my Pentax Q, both create(d) nicer B&W images than my K3 can manage. My partner's ancient Sony P&S and Canon S120, again produce nicer B&W images. My Motorola smartphone, now 2 years old, same story. Pentax are not unique in this regard with larger sensors, I never liked the B&W on my Fuji X100 either. Fuji seem to have realised this with their Acros simulation, but I do not really want to drop a boat load of money on a new system just for B&W. Improved battery life would also be desirable. Otherwise, I'm really happy with my K3 and I do not see any significant improvement, worth its cost, of a KP, which name reminds me of a certain ex-England cricketer, and some deficiencies regarding ergonomics. Arguably Nikon has not released any camera which is significantly better than their D7100, at the same price point of that camera.
It seems that technology is reaching a plateau, where only tiny improvements regarding ISO performance and AF speed and accuracy, which most of us don't need, come at an ever greater cost

[Zygonyx]

And 4K....

[normhead]

Who needs all this massive resolution? Not the big majority of us. Nikon dropped down to 20MP for its d500 and d7500. The 24mp of my K3 is plenty for a hobbyist. What I would love to see from Pentax is a camera with with the K3's resolution, and decent B&W output. My Ricoh GRiv, when I had it and my Pentax Q, both create(d) nicer B&W images than my K3 can manage. My partner's ancient Sony P&S and Canon S120, again produce nicer B&W images. My Motorola smartphone, now 2 years old, same story. Pentax are not unique in this regard with larger sensors, I never liked the B&W on my Fuji X100 either. Fuji seem to have realised this with their Acros simulation, but I do not really want to drop a s"!t load of money on a new system just for B&W. Improved battery life would also be desirable. Otherwise, I'm really happy with my K3 and I do not see any significant improvement, worth its cost, of a KP, which name reminds me of a certain ex-England cricketer, and some deficiencies regarding ergonomics. Arguably Nikon has not released any camera which is significantly better than their D7100, at the same price point of that camera.
It seems that technology is reaching a plateau, where only tiny improvements regarding ISO performance and AF speed and accuracy, which most of us don't need, come at an ever greater cost

I am seriously unimpressed with the extra resolution of the K-1 over my K-3, but I still really prefer the camera. Sure it's a frill, I haven't a single print that wouldn't have been as good taken with Tess' K-5. It's perhaps a luxury, but after close to a year, I still feel like it spoils me every time I take it out. I kinda like being spoiled.

And I'm not sure Pixel Shift does anything, but it forces me to use a tripod, the two second timer and the electronic shutter. How can those things not be good?

[surfar]

KP, which name reminds me of a certain ex-England cricketer

Did he defect to SuidAFRIKA!

---------- Post added 09-16-17 at 11:45 AM ----------

Acros simulation, but I do not really want to drop a boat load of money on a new system just for B&W

And 4K....

And a lot of new things when the XE-3 goes on sale at the end of the month.