[Kobie]

With the new IBIS System and the redesigned focus system., I'm just wondering if we may see a Hybrid Camera coming out from Pentax. No one has come out with a DSLR that can also mimic a mirrorless camera. I can only imagine the benefits of having a camera that offers both of the advantages of a DSLR and a Mirrorless camera all in one body. It could very well be a game changer.

I believe so. New AF system, (possibly new IBIS), Hybrid Viewfinder all lead in that direction to me. But it all comes down to if everything works reliably and seamlessly.
Canon is apparently working on a version of Hybrid DSLR (new 1 DX), Nikons D780 is a hybrid DSLR, so it would make sense if Pentax followed.... I mean surpassed them with their hybrid system (which based on the patent info, it would).

[JPT]

I believe so. New AF system, (possibly new IBIS), Hybrid Viewfinder all lead in that direction to me. But it all comes down to if everything works reliably and seamlessly.
Canon is apparently working on a version of Hybrid DSLR (new 1 DX), Nikons D780 is a hybrid DSLR, so it would make sense if Pentax followed.... I mean surpassed them with their hybrid system (which based on the patent info, it would).

You seem to be using two terms here. Firstly a hybrid viewfinder, which means an OVF that can become an EVF on demand as desired. I personally think this is rather unlikely for the new APS-C camera. About a year ago Ricoh development staff mentioned in an interview that a hybrid OVF/EVF was difficult because it degrades the quality of the OVF. Imagine a hypothetical camera that has an OVF only 85% as bright as its predecessor, but could switch to EVF mode. I wonder how many users would be comfortable with the compromise, especially since it would be more expensive. Most people who have a preference for EVF are moving to pure mirrorless anyway. I think this is the main reason we haven't seen a hybrid viewfinder from any manufacturer yet. It's a question of marketability rather than technical feasibility. Sure, if all else was equal, you would prefer the flexibility, but not it imposed a compromise on something you care about more.

The other term you use is Hybrid DSLR, and you seem to have a pretty loose description of this. Even the D780 qualifies and I see that as a mild DSLR update. I think it is almost certain that the new APS-C will include some new technology to make the camera more content aware during focusing and display more information in the viewfinder. In particular, I think eye AF is a must feature now and the new Pentax will deliver this through better sensors. I'm expecting a much more intelligent AF system because of multiple comments from Ricoh employees about deep learning and so on over the years. We could also hope for some interesting new manual focusing assist tools, but I'm less sure about that.

[noelpolar]

FWIW .... the K1 is so good I probally won't buy a new replacement unless it helps me focus manual lenses through the view finder.

[house]

Initially I was excited by the idea of a hybrid viewfinder. Thinking about it I realized that the advantages to me are minimal. I find the many overlays in milcs annoying and would only minimally benefit from blinkies, zebras or tracking af graphics. Sure ovf feedback would perhaps cut down on chimping but it seems to me milc shooters chimp about as much as dslr shooters?

Considering the cost implications it's unlikely to be worth it. I would be very happy to be proven wrong however.

[monochrome]

FWIW .... the K1 is so good I probally won't buy a new replacement unless it helps me focus manual lenses through the view finder.

^^ This. Maybe if the technology is that good I’ll get it in the next FF but not K-new.

[sculptor666]

ability to zoom/focus confirm in the viewfinder would be super

[reh321]

ability to zoom/focus confirm in the viewfinder would be super

both my K-30 and KP "focus confirm" in the viewfinder, but I have to trust my view through the viewfinder as to what that actually means - I don't always see the same thing in actual images, most likely because of DoF .... perhaps I actually want a few degrees of focus-ring rotation

[sculptor666]

both my K-30 and KP "focus confirm" in the viewfinder, but I have to trust my view through the viewfinder as to what that actually means - I don't always see the same thing in actual images, most likely because of DoF .... perhaps I actually want a few degrees of focus-ring rotation

sorry, wasn't referring to the beep or the red light! i mean zooming would be nice to confirm to me what i want to be in focus is actually in focus.

[reh321]

sorry, wasn't referring to the beep or the red light! i mean zooming would be nice to confirm to me what i want to be in focus is actually in focus.

My first action with any camera is to turn off the sound because it attracts attention, so I depend on the red light. In this case I do agree - not more than fifteen minutes before I made my comment, I took a photo with a 17mm AdaptAll lens on my K-30 and I did have trouble in focusing exactly, but my wife just confirmed my choice of one of the images as being acceptable - but a better view would have reduced my angst.

[zoolander]

Originally posted by phoebus*
I read it slightly differently.. the two light paths are similar to the current system:

1. Focus through the semi-mirrored section of the viewing mirror, reflected via a folding mirror behind it down to the PDAF sensor
2. Exposure (and possibly image interpretation - face detect?) from the sensor on the prism

The patent makes a lot about the stepped positioning of the focus pixels and adjacent exposure pixels: talking about using the exposure pixels to determine when to read the focus pixels. My take on that is; the stepped focus pixels give effectively double the resolution, while keeping the sensing areas large as it would be for single resolution. The exposure pixels on the focus silicon allow the adjacent focus pixels to be read as soon as enough photons have been received. I interpret that as allowing focus updates at an optimal interval for the lighting conditions: bright conditions allow much quicker sampling. There is also some mention of using the exposure sensor as part of the process.

There again, I might have completely misread the rather woolly Google translation.
That does make sense. Maybe I interpreted that part incorrectly lol.

I saw Kobies video on youtube and found this thread. I read the patent completely differently to Kobie. I see one PDAF sensor and not two. The patent describes the arrangement of the PDAF sensor array intorectangle sensors. You've got a row of rectangular horizontal line sensors, then dual rows of rectangular vertical sensors slightly offset (adjacent to each other). Then another row of line sensors and so on and so-forth. Whether this system works is another story.

It appears that Canon and Nikon use similar (but different) PDAF sensors. The consist of tiny micro lenses that when in focus the light shines through in the centre of the diode, and if it shines to anywhere but the centre it is out of focus. See this link to Nikons patent:

Nikon patent « NEW CAMERA

Lensrental show how it works also through the micro lenses:

Lens Rentals | Blog

After looking into these sensors, I'm not too confident that this new Pentax patent will work well. The pixel density needs to be higher that what the patent suggests, and I can't see how rectangle sensor lenses can even work. I can definitely see how the round micro lenses can work.

[Kobie]

I saw Kobies video on youtube and found this thread. I read the patent completely differently to Kobie. I see one PDAF sensor and not two.

For the AF system embedded in the sensor, yes there's one. Here's an image where I've circled the current AF system and the new one in green (notice also that there's a CPU in the lens on the new one as well on top of the pupil divided system which is seperate from the on sensor system. I still believe these will all be tied together (which is mentioned in the patent, however, they don't explain exactly where the first exposure signal comes from vs the second exposure signal, nor where the cutoff point actually is or how that's actually determined).