[ogl]

So how about the following specification?
- 28mp (on the assumption that I'm right about the above)


I don't think this is beyond the realms of possibility, and it would be a great camera.

Only new AF system could be really interesting

[Kunzite]

What I said is accurate. The only difference between a MILC and a DSLR is the inclusion of a SLR viewfinder system in the latter (vs. the optional inclusion of an EVF in the former).
Obviously, every viewfinder system (or lack of) affects the camera design in certain ways.

[Rico]

Samsung was using a 28mp BSI sensor in their NX500. It has been to bad that Samsung has had such internal problems for Ricoh/Pentax to work with them. Still this sensor was a good candidate for the next APS-C. It has excellent performance against the Sony 24mp.

An interesting move Ricoh/Pentax could take which would bring in part of Ricoh's modular tradition is to instead of making a separate mirrorless body have interchangeable view finders like the Pentax LX. Then the body could have both an optical viewfinder and also a EVF viewfinder for mirrorless use.

This strategy could work equally well for both the top end APS-C and for Full Frame. It opens up many unique viewfinder options. It makes XS lenses viable.

[Fenwoodian]

There are 3 features that, any one of which would prompt me to purchase the new Pentax flagship APS-C body:

1. A "curved" sensor (amazing corners at wide apertures)
2. Better video (4K, 240fps @ 1080p, and/or image stabilization during video)
3. Pixel shift that works with slow moving objects (without having to mess with Raw Therapee)

If Pentax does any one of the above I'm buying the new camera body.

Short of incorporating one or more of the above features, there is no other new feature that would be of interest to me.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 01-19-2018 at 12:34 PM.

[Kunzite]

1. would not work with your existing lenses, and it would not work well with lenses of focal lengths varying from ultra wide to long. The latter would have to artificially "curve" their focus plane.

[aslyfox]

1. would not work with your existing lenses, and it would not work well with lenses of focal lengths varying from ultra wide to long. The latter would have to artificially "curve" their focus plane.

any changes that would affect the camera body's ability to use lenses created in the past would, in my book, make it not a Pentax

[BigMackCam]

There are 3 features that, any one of which would prompt me to purchase the new Pentax flagship APS-C body:

1. A "curved" sensor (amazing corners at wide apertures)
2. Better video (4K, 240fps @ 1080p, and/or image stabilization during video)
3. Pixel shift that works with slow moving objects (without having to mess with Raw Therapee)

Regarding point 1, the problem is that lenses would have to be designed to work with that specific sensor curvature. Then again, whilst many photographers these days want constant edge-to-edge sharpness (and that's an absolutely valid wish), others want the older, traditional-style rendering. I fall squarely into that latter category - but despite that, I completely understand why you and many others might prefer the alternative - especially for specific applications

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-19-2018 at 04:48 PM.

[MMVIII]

Regarding point 1, the problem is that lenses would have to be designed to work with that specific sensor curvature. Then again, whilst many photographers these days want constant edge-to-edge sharpness (and that's an absolutely valid wish), others want the older, traditional-style rendering. I fall squarely into that latter category - but despite that, I completely understand why you and many others might prefer the alternative - especially for specific applications

Right, this is why this type of technology might make more sense in a fixed lens camera, like a new GR. Question is if it would be produced in sufficient quantities to make it affordable in consumer products at all.

[credos4u]

So how about the following specification?
- 28mp (on the assumption that I'm right about the above)

yes to everything else.
yes to better AF.
yes to 4k video
yes to On sensor PDAF
yes to a more widespread and much more dense array of AF sensors...
again NO to an additional wheel, with functions accessible equally quick in other ways already, from me.

and an ABSOLUTE NOOO! WHY ON GODSearth! to a 28mp sensor.

That is because I am sure we pretty much have hit the ceiling, when it comes to a pixel density/sensel size that still makes sense on APS-C...
especially with the optical resolution the very compact designed DA lenses deliver....

even if you look at the pictures of a Canon 5Ds or 5Dsr those FF bodies have a resolution of app. 50 mp....
and even the best "Canon L lenses" with glass elements and a flange diameter much bigger than Pentax's, show that those great optical instruments fail the immensive sensor resolution of the Canon 5Ds if you zoom in to 100%...

So take a look at a 28mp APS-C sensor... OK, I estimate that a 28mp APS-C sensor has even smaller sensor pixels(sensels) than a 50mp ff sensor(so a higher pixel density)...
what may cause:
an "ironed" look in some cases, no good high ISO capabilities and will defenitely show that the compact DA glass can not handle such a resolution if you zoom to 100%, etc. etc.
yes our DA glass is good. but for sure its not better than canon L glass.
Sry for having to say that.

So pls believe me there is absolutely no sense, in having such a resolution on an APS-C cameras sensor, when the mounted glass can not "feed" it right.
I guess that would be like having 60MP on a full frame camera.. so its just not the ideal resolution.


IMHO even 24mp are absolutely perfect ...
and a very fast 20-24MP Sensor with a higher dynamic range including "On-Sensor AF points" to the very edges of the sensor would be the best for the next APS-C flagship.

Yes, its right... If all customers push hard enough, there may be a 28mp sensor on the next APS-C, but what would that do to the rest of the camera? --> right:
it would throw back all the other features.

Just like the 36MP sensor killed more modern specs on the K-1.
One would have expected far better AF, vid p.rates, 4K vid, enormous buffer, and high burst rate like 10fps at least on a FF PENTAX that hits the market in 2016.
And I am pretty sure, we could have had that on the K-1, if not so much users would have cried for more Megapixels like babies for milk.

Sry, if that sounds a bit rude, but its the truth. ... As if you couldnt effort some used 12-16mp crop body if you have enough bucks for a 2000dollar FF. WTF?
10-12mp would have been fair enough for APS-C mode on a FF body.

just think again, if you really need more than 24MP, go and buy a used K-1 for 1.400-1.500 dollars.(at least that was the price you imagined for the upcoming APS-C flagship) there is loads of old FF glass for a penny and a dime if you dont care about actual IQ and are only into MP.

Have a heart and leave the MP to the kids ...
And in case you fancy, that one sunny and bright day a fairy might kiss you and people want you to shoot for billboards, there is no way around mid-format and you can buy used 645D bodies for app. 2000dollars already nowadays.

[beachgardener]

a very fast 20-24MP Sensor with a higher dynamic range including

suits me

[Kunzite]

24MP on APS-C is fine, but not the upper limit. And if you're looking for the sharpest pixels, you might get a softer image.

10fps on a FF camera launched in 2016, sure, if it's a 6000$ monster with 20MP.
Sorry, but you are mistaken about the K-1 - its high resolution sensors hold back only one characteristic - that is, with a 24MP sensor it would've been capable of about 6.5-7fps. But not more.
Far better AF, 4K video, enormous buffer, 10fps are just fantasies, I'm afraid. Far better AF is obviously independent of the sensor size; they just didn't had that. 4K video, with which sensor? Enormous buffer meant a new processor; 10fps, a D5-level sensor and beefier mechanics. Even if they made it somehow, it wouldn't be the 2000 euro camera.

In conclusion, don't worry and trust Pentax - they know what they're doing (they're just not very fast at doing it)

[biz-engineer]

And I am pretty sure, we could have had that on the K-1, if not so much users would have cried for more Megapixels like babies for milk.

One axis of rationale would be that the only reason for FF to exist is sports photography where there is no way around high ISO + high shutter speed (can't use tripod, can't use flash). But you have guys like Ed of photouniverse youtube channel, who, 2 years before K1 was released said "Pentax should do at least 36Mpixels FF or there is no point in making a full frame camera", and he (same person) made prints to demonstrate that apsc pixel shift was as good as Canon 6D and plenty good enough for prints in terms of resolution, and later on Ed moved to Fuji and later moved to u43, essentially contradicting himself many times. OTOH, you have guys who buy a Sony A9 for taking static shots, that's complete non-sense. System specifications are often misunderstood with regards to the purpose of the camera.

[surfar]

and an ABSOLUTE NOOO! WHY ON GODSearth! to a 28mp sensor.

Because 28 mp produces STUNNING images, just look at images from the NX1 or NX500!

Also ask Fuji why their next sensor is likely to be 28 or 30 mp on their X system.

[biz-engineer]

trust Pentax - they know what they're doing

Yes, they know that they are doing a 50mm prime when people have asked for 20mm and 85mm primes because there are non available.
Result is, the poll about who will buy the DFA*50mm says that 80% of Pentaxians will no buy it.

[surfar]

trust Pentax

Yes