[RonHendriks1966]

Faster AF, I'd very much like that - but why lower megapixels?

For Instagram you don't need so many megapixels. ....

[pres589]

Lower megapixels on the same sized sensor usually delivers improved high-ISO IQ. Think about the K-5 to K-3 transition and how that impacted high-ISO.

I'm pretty happy with my 16mp K-5 II. 24mp on a full-frame sized sensor would do me just fine.

Whatever they do, I really do believe it'll be great, and this is a nice time to be in the fold.

[RGlasel]

24mp on a full-frame sized sensor would do me just fine.

Pixel density on the K-1 is virtually the same as the 16mp K-5. That's why APS-C cropped images from the K-1 are 15mp. The issue with higher pixel density is more noise and the accelerator chip produces less noise and better colour fidelity at higher ISO settings in the 24mp K-70 than the K-3. The only benefit from a 24mp FF sensor is less data to process, which affects frame rate and buffer limits, but does nothing for image quality.

[Larrymc]

It’s hard to know what they’d do to produce a 35FF DSLR at a price below the K-1ii, unless maybe they stripped out IBIS, and included a fixed LCD screen, and/or maybe went to a lighter build.

Now, a K-1 with the patented EVF overlay, plus 4k video and a revised AF system would be a welcome addition at the higher price.

Where would that leave the needed APS-C upgrade, though? I can’t believe that, with the almost complete lens catalogue for that format, that APS-C would be left hanging with just the K70 and the KP.

Me either. In my opinion which isn't worth much, I think its going to be an APS-C and Full Frame. Now whether the FF will be a grade higher or lower than the K-1/K-1II will be the question. They just don't need to leave APS-C hanging with just the KP as the high spec APSC camera.

[thibs]

If they want FF to become a bigger part of their portfolio of products, they need more FF cams (regardless of what I feel about it).
They also need proper APS. Defining proper (not K70-like) is the whole exercise. KP-like ? K3-like ?

Nikon did bring high end APS in the end and... D850 sold way better it seems. Pentax isn't a lot a about high speed, sport etc so may have to make difficult choices (including letting 645 on the backburner for a while)...

[pres589]

What kind of proper APS would you like to see?

[fsge]

What kind of proper APS would you like to see?

Something slightly better than the KP would make it. The latter is not outdated

[reh321]

The issue with higher pixel density is more noise and the accelerator chip produces less noise and better colour fidelity at higher ISO settings in the 24mp K-70 than the K-3. The only benefit from a 24mp FF sensor is less data to process, which affects frame rate and buffer limits, but does nothing for image quality.

Your first sentence contradicts your last sentence. A 24mp FF camera could produce less noise and better color fidelity at higher ISO values (*) .... that is why some Nikon users love the D750 and keep asking for a "D750 replacement" the way people here ask for a K-3ii replacement .... that is a significant improvement in IQ. Most Nikon users seem to view all APS cameras as "second class".

(*) A 24mp FF camera would give better IQ than either K-1 variant and better IQ than either K-3 variant because in each case the sensor would be less crowded.

[reh321]

.... If I were venturing a "guess", I'd say a FF below and above the current K1 II.

But what do I know .

-Carl

We agree about something! .... that is exactly what I was guessing back before Photokina {24mp and 46mp FF cameras}

[reh321]

For Instagram you don't need so many megapixels. ....

You "don't need" so many MP for much of anything. My personal experiments showed the 'A' 50mm f/1.7 lens that was kitted with my Super Program gives me more detail on my K-30 than I ever got using Kodachrome 25 in that Super Program .... so if Kodachrome was good enough for us twenty years ago 16+ MP should be good enough today.

[pres589]

I still don't understand the "APS" expectation.

And it's nice to see that reh321 got it with my interest in a 24mpix FF camera. Honestly I'm still good with my 16mpix APS-C digital and would like other things instead of more pixels.

Fingers crossed.

[reh321]

I still don't understand the "APS" expectation.

I'm not sure what you don't understand.

[pres589]

I guess APS means application? I'm repeating what was written before. What's an application in this context? What's missing? Is there a camera that is a good example of class leading on this one?

[reh321]

I guess APS means application? I'm repeating what was written before. What's an application in this context? What's missing? Is there a camera that is a good example of class leading on this one?

I'm sorry. Some of us get sloppy and write 'APS' when we mean 'APS-C', like the K-3ii.

[RGlasel]

Your first sentence contradicts your last sentence. A 24mp FF camera could produce less noise and better color fidelity at higher ISO values ... A 24mp FF camera would give better IQ than either K-1 variant and better IQ than either K-3 variant because in each case the sensor would be less crowded.

I neglected to type all the words I had in my head, so I will give it another go. The only perceptible issue with the IQ of the 24mp K-3 vs. the 16mp K-5 was noise, in some situations the increased resolution of the K-3 was an advantage. The K-70 is also 24mp and with the accelerator chip it produces a perceptible improvement in noise (along with better colour fidelity, which is related to less noise, but isn't exactly the same thing) compared to the K-3. If you reduce the resolution of the accelerated K-1 II to 24mp, there is no guarantee there will be a perceptible reduction in high ISO noise (from what is already best in class) and there will be a perceptible reduction in resolution. Reduced pixel density could potentially result in higher dynamic range, but there are other factors involved and any improvement might not be perceptible. None of the tests I can find suggest that the 24mp A7 III has better IQ (or specifically, less noise) than the K-1 II. In other words, a FF Pentax camera with 24mp resolution is highly unlikely to produce perceptible benefits in any of the factors that go into a subjective IQ rating, it is more likely that IQ will suffer from reduced resolution. The only perceptible benefit to lower resolution will be a higher frame rate and better buffer performance because there is less data to process.

I started moving towards this rabbit hole when pres589 commented on his satisfaction with IQ of the 16mp K-5 II, a sentiment that has been expressed by others. Ignoring the difference in sensor size for a moment, I don't think anyone can(is) claim(ing) that the K-5 has better IQ than the K-1, so there is no need to reduce the resolution of the K-1 to get K-5 performance. I also don't think it is likely that reducing the resolution of the K-1 II will result in better IQ, based on the IQ of the A7 III, but I can't be as definite about that. My original comment was intended to make the point that a Pentax FF camera with less resolution than the K-1 II is unlikely to produce perceptibly better images. I probably also should have commented that if other camera manufacturers can get better buffer performance with 36mp sensors, that is the direction Pentax should be aiming towards, instead of reducing resolution.