[bobmaxja]

A lower resolution Pentax will be a major flop for an 100th anniversary. Remember this is important,you cannot , the world is waiting for a revolutuary DSLR not a me to.

[Rondec]

So, I think people are mixing up two separate things. Some are thinking that Pentax can use an even older sensor like the one in the D750 to create a (slightly) cheaper full frame camera. Based on the D750, such a camera could do 6.5 fps and would have similar video capabilities to the K-1 II. With regard to dynamic range and high iso capability it would basically be equivalent to the K-1, but worse than the K-1 II (based on photons to photos graphs). How much cheaper such a camera would be than the K-1 II is debatable at best. Yes, keeping the electronics the same would save some on cost and maybe such an old sensor would be a little cheaper, but the D750 sells for 1500 so it isn't as though there is any indication that it would be much cheaper than the K-1 II.

On the other hand, there seems to be a group who thinks that with a 24 megapixel sensor you could really have really high frame rates and bigger buffers like maybe the A9 or D5, but of course, that sort of camera would need a complete redesign.

I hate to keep bringing this back to APS-C, but 26 megapixels is for an APS-C camera, not a full frame camera. Pentax doesn't need a cheaper full frame camera either. If they want to, they can keep the K-1 II around for awhile after its sequel comes out and lower the price a bit. But none of that sort of thing actually moves the brand forward and I for one, hope that when they release a new camera, it will be with higher end specs than we see on current cameras.

[BROO]

A lower resolution Pentax will be a major flop for an 100th anniversary. Remember this is important,you cannot , the world is waiting for a revolutuary DSLR not a me too.

So far- from what I can glean from this thread- is the new ASP-C flagship will have a 26 Mp Sony sensor which is capable of 10 fps, 60 + focus points, designed to compete with the Nikon D500, Canon D7 mkII and priced around the 1700USD.(This would require a significant upgrade in processing capabilities I guess) Possibly 4K video.

That is my take on things.

[swanlefitte]

A lower resolution Pentax will be a major flop for an 100th anniversary. Remember this is important,you cannot , the world is waiting for a revolutuary DSLR not a me to.

I would say the 100 really needs to compete with the upcoming d90, d760/7600 more than the d6. One can see what is rumored with those two to see just how good this needs to be in order to get good opinions of it and be praised not panned.

[reh321]

I can't see any sense in creating a lower resolution K-1. What would make more sense would be to continue selling the K-1ii at a slightly lower price when releasing a K-1 replacement with all the latest tech, which is bound to cost more than the current K-1ii.

The Nikon D750 still sells well even though it is past its prime; many Nikon users call it a "high ISO monster" and beg Nikon for a replacement as energetically as users here beg for a K-3ii replacement.

In addition, if Pentax has any thoughts of making "FF" the standard again, and APS-C the exception, a 24mp "FF" would be a good lowest tier entry model.

[reh321]

So, I think people are mixing up two separate things. Some are thinking that Pentax can use an even older sensor like the one in the D750 to create a (slightly) cheaper full frame camera. Based on the D750, such a camera could do 6.5 fps and would have similar video capabilities to the K-1 II. With regard to dynamic range and high iso capability it would basically be equivalent to the K-1, but worse than the K-1 II (based on photons to photos graphs). How much cheaper such a camera would be than the K-1 II is debatable at best. Yes, keeping the electronics the same would save some on cost and maybe such an old sensor would be a little cheaper, but the D750 sells for 1500 so it isn't as though there is any indication that it would be much cheaper than the K-1 II.

Through in the 'accelerator' and more pixie dust, there is no reason to expect it to perform worse than the K-1 family, since it would start off with sensor elements larger than the K-1 family uses.

[TwoUptons]

On the other hand, there seems to be a group who thinks that with a 24 megapixel sensor you could really have really high frame rates and bigger buffers like maybe the A9 or D5, but of course, that sort of camera would need a complete redesign.

I hate to keep bringing this back to APS-C, but 26 megapixels is for an APS-C camera, not a full frame camera. Pentax doesn't need a cheaper full frame camera either. If they want to, they can keep the K-1 II around for awhile after its sequel comes out and lower the price a bit. But none of that sort of thing actually moves the brand forward and I for one, hope that when they release a new camera, it will be with higher end specs than we see on current cameras.

I'm with you on both of these...
Whatever the next full frame is, I expect it will be a significant redesign (outside of the odd special edition K1ii with a different prism cover).

I also expect that it will be based (at least in terms of software and basic architecture) on the next APS-C camera.
26Mp could be enough for that, especially if the trade is high frame rates instead of higher resolution...
Between what we've seen going from the K3 to the KP, I expect a different imaging pipeline.
I also expect a different processing scheme, like we've begun to see with the accelerator, though still a long way from the heavy computational photography we see on phones and such.

I expect it will have 4K video, though not implemented as well as other brands, and a higher-speed pipeline to deal with the increased data.
I would like it to do focus stacking, as I think that's a neat complement to pixel shift.

But it will still cause much whinging and carrying on how it isn't perfect, whatever it is.
Autofocus won't be fast enough for everyone, and it won't have enough points or be able to focus in complete darkness... but it will be plenty fast for me...
(though I still have a rant about un-crippled mounts I could copy paste in any time if we need more whinging... )

-Eric

---

Last edited by TwoUptons; 07-01-2019 at 06:23 PM. Reason: missed some words when I copied something...

[Rico]

Well, the image processing engine takes raw data from the buffer and process then before writing to the memory cards. The image processing engine can't do more than 45Mbps for emptying the buffer, so the speed isn't limited by UHS-I.



If you count the number of frame stored in buffer, both in 1:1 crop mode and FF mode, you'll notice the buffer capacity is the same, and raw vs jpeg makes little difference. So that means the image processing takes place after the buffer: Sensor -> Buffer -> Image processor -> SD cards. If the image processing took place before the buffer (Sensor -> Image processor -> Buffer -> SD card), then the buffer capacity for JPEG would be about 3 times the capacity observed for raws (raw files ~45Mb, jpeg ~15Mb). So that means if you replace UHS-I by UHS-II you still won't get the speed.

In your scenario the K-1 would be twice as slow as it is now if the image processor can only handle 45Mb/s as you claim as the files still have to pass through the slow UHS-I storage bus. You pretend the files don't even pass through the UHS-I bus that the UHS-I bus doesn't have any effect on the files getting to the SD card.

You could increase the speed of the buffer and the image processing unit to handle 5Gb/s in the K-1 and it will not make a difference because in the end the files run into the UHS-I bottleneck. The files are still going take just as long to write to storage no matter how fast they are processed.

You left out the Accelerator Unit which processes the data off the sensor. Ricoh said this speeds up the whole process except when the files reach the storage bus where everything slows down.

If you replace the UHS-I bus in the K-1 with UHS-II you absolutely will get the speed. UHS-II is exponentially faster in a multitude of ways. It's why the rest of the industry has all already moved to it.

[swanlefitte]

You could increase the speed of the buffer and the image processing unit to handle 5Gb/s in the K-1 and it will not make a difference because in the end the files run into the UHS-I bottleneck. The files are still going take just as long to write to storage no matter how fast they are processed.

.

That was the point of contention. You need to also change the other components to take advantage of a new bus

[reh321]

I'm with you on both of these...
Whatever the next full frame is, I expect it will be a significant redesign (outside of the odd special edition K1ii with a different prism cover).

Are you thinking of the "KP J", the special custom version of the KP???

[bobmaxja]

We will get a new APSC, I figure the name could be K-100, a KP on high steroid. Dont expect less. People who think Ricoh will produce a low cost APSC or FF will be very unhappy.
For an anniversary model, you want to put the best of the best.
If less than that , I just see critic talking about how can Pentax survive with a lot end model.

[MegaPower]

on sensor phrase detection

[Rico]

That was the point of contention. You need to also change the other components to take advantage of a new bus

No you don't when the bus is the weakest point. How can any one claim the entire system will not benefit if you increase the storage bus from 30mb/s to 300mb/s. The best thing about the people in contention about this is they mostly all claim to be you know in the "industry" whether hardware or software. They are the most persistent in arguing against increasing the capacity of the storage bus. You would think the people in the "industry" would all be screaming in favor of it instead there is a continuous parade of opposition against it.

None of biz-engineers numbers add up the way they claim. Imaging-Resources has detailed performance numbers that don't match up to their claims in any way.

The best part to biz-engineers scenario it is all the image processor as the bottleneck that it only processes 45mb/s of data at a time so it takes a second just to process the RAW. It can not process the files fast enough out of the "buffer". Okay then if that is so the K-1 should be twice as slow as the file still has to take another second to right to the SD card through the UHS-I bus because the process isn't really finished till that happens. But that is not what is happening it doesn't take over 2 seconds to process and write each file to the SD card. It would need to happen if what biz-engineer was even remotely accurate to what they are claiming.

[reh321]

No you don't when the bus is the weakest point. How can any one claim the entire system will not benefit if you increase the storage bus from 30mb/s to 300mb/s. The best thing about the people in contention about this is they mostly all claim to be you know in the "industry" whether hardware or software. They are the most persistent in arguing against increasing the capacity of the storage bus. You would think the people in the "industry" would all be screaming in favor of it instead there is a continuous parade of opposition against it.

None of biz-engineers numbers add up the way they claim. Imaging-Resources has detailed performance numbers that don't match up to their claims in any way.

The best part to biz-engineers scenario it is all the image processor as the bottleneck that it only processes 45mb/s of data at a time so it takes a second just to process the RAW. It can not process the files fast enough out of the "buffer". Okay then if that is so the K-1 should be twice as slow as the file still has to take another second to right to the SD card through the UHS-I bus because the process isn't really finished till that happens. But that is not what is happening it doesn't take over 2 seconds to process and write each file to the SD card. It would need to happen if what biz-engineer was even remotely accurate to what they are claiming.

Did you ever get around to telling us what type of photo, if any, you take.

[biz-engineer]

So, I think people are mixing up two separate things.

Yes, that's right, things are mixed up.

The problem in that discussion is people confuse what would be practically useful to sport shooting, what Ricoh needs, and what the competition is doing.

1) What the competition is doing, is mostly irrelevant in ILC market because people still buy new camera models even if not top noch, simply because they have lenses in K mount. Evidence is the K1, the K1 isn't top notch, there are better cameras , but is good enough for slow shooting and can use K mount lenses. Customers still buy a K1 based on price, and based on having K lenses already.

2) What Ricoh needs: what Ricoh needs is not the problem of the photographer. What Ricoh needs for successful business case is to address "points of pain" of camera users, the success of Ricoh camera depends on what the new camera would do that the K1 II doesn't do well, i.e sport shooting

3) Sport shooting: 24Mpixels full frame is the best, it has always been, and it doesn't require to redesign the whole camera into a D5. While the 4.4 FPS and buffer @ 36Mp of the K1 is too slow and too short, the kind of frame rate of the K3 and buffer depth on a 24Mp full frame camera would be suitable, and it would require to redesign the K1 body, and the K3 electronics proves that Ricoh can a faster camera at 24Mp.

The K1 is sizable, a high resolution, relatively slow camera:
- for the size, Ricoh have addressed the gap with the GRIII, you can now buy a GRIII for when you still want to have good image quality when you don't want to carry a big camera around
- for the speed of operation, the gap is growing. Usually, rapid shooting require high shutter speeds, hence high ISO, and that's why a full frame sensor is more adequate, Pentax doesn't have a low resolution FF for sport shooting. Apsc 26Mpixels would be fast but noisy. Typically, still bird shooter use a 7D or D500, but for sports 7D and D500 are not the best choice, low res. full frame are the right choice, Pentax doesn't have such camera in the lineup.