Originally posted by aleonx3 @RolloR, that is exactly what I want as the K-7 successor (you said it better than me
); although I may add high ISO performance feature like the K-x (the current K-7 ISO performance is still miles ahead of my K10D anyway) would be icing on the cake for me.
Ahhh we can just imagine!
Originally posted by 24X36NOW Canon 7D: 5.8 x 4.5 x 2.9 in.
Canon 5D Mk II: 6 x 4.5 x 3 in.
You mean "Like a 7D but not like a 7D?!
At 1/10" deeper and 2/10" wider, you'd have trouble telling the difference. A FF camera is not "gigantic" because it has a FF sensor; it's size is the size the camera maker chooses to make it. For example, the top Nikon bodies prior to the D3 were almost the same size as the D3, even with an APS-C sensor.
I think what you mean is "not gigantic like a Canon or Nikon."
I mean "like a K-7." I like to think that APS-C cameras should be sized like Canon rebels, with the bigger ones like Pentax K-7 and Nikon D90. I mean I like holding the 7D/5DII/D300. But carrying them around is a different thing.
Originally posted by rvannatta on the high speed, high resolution video, I would rather suspect that engineers
have some problems processing/storing the volume of data collected. Bigger data pipes mean more expensive electronics and more electric power=bigger batteries adding bulk and cost, but I suspect Pentax is smart enough to know that if they can win the specifications war and keep the price under control
it would be good for business.
I have to agree, I think 8fps is asking too much. Maybe 7fps "with battery grip" would be ok
For the video, Canon did it with a Rebel (T2i)
All in all,
- Video features of the $800 Canon T2i
- Body of the existing Pentax K-7
- Low/High ISO IQ of the $650 K-x (maybe even better!)
- Bump up the FPS speed a bit
- Perhaps different colors? lol
- not more than $1,200
then IMHO we've got a perfect APS-C camera!