[Parry]

I think pentax is definitely capable of bringing a well all-around performance full frame camera to the table, combining 36mp for detail, speed on fps, and other never before seen technologies into one package. I loved the nikon d800e, but the fps was just too slow for sport and I would have loved an AA filter simulator with the camera, plus in body shake reduction. However, the pictures from that nikon camera did have amazing breath taking details. I would really want to see pentax coming out with a pro sport 36mp FF camera. In a heartbeat, I would sell all my junks in my garage and max out my credit to get one.

Me same same. This is where it's all at.

[texaspentaxeon]

The only reason I am currently looking to switch from Pentax to Nikon is due to high ISO performance. I shoot for photojournalism and for rodeos, so the ability to capture movement with a fast shutterspeed is paramount. I can pull ISO3200 with out to much editing on the K5-IIs, but above that it gets bad. Nikon D3s & D4 photographers I run into are shooting ISO10,000 with results compatible to my K5-IIs around ISO2000. That combined with excellent autofocus makes the Nikon a reliable workhorse. I would LOVE for Pentax to release a professional oriented camera, even if it wasn't full frame. I would be happy, and I'm holding out on my Nikon switch until this summer. Maybe good news will come down from on high. I really hope they don't jump on a high megapixel system... It will be just a consumer grade 645D.

[Poit]

24MP.

Keep that frame rate up, and file-sizes manageable.

With the progress made in the K-3, I think Pentax could make a killer professional FF, able to compete with the big two.

I agree with the post above, they need to focus on a professional system now, not just pander to the consumer/enthusiast market yet again.

---------- Post added 03-17-14 at 09:08 PM ----------

I guess 36 Mp would be logical, although I'd be happy with 24 Mp as well:
- 12 Mp Q7
- 16 Mp K-500 APS-C
- 16 Mp K-50 APS-C
- 24 Mp K-3 APS-C
- 36 Mp FF
- 50 Mp 645D v 2.0
That would be a complete set with a model for all levels of photography. The K-500 could be ditched to make the whole line-up weather sealed - except of course the Q7 for which that's not relevant. So, I'll be looking forward to Photokina and the release of the new Pentax FF ;D

That's a great looking lineup, when I see it in black and white!

Having said that, I don't think it would look any worse if the FF was 24MP:

- 12 Mp Q7
- 16 Mp K-500 APS-C
- 16 Mp K-50 APS-C
- 24 Mp K-3 APS-C
- 24 Mp K-1 FF
- 50 Mp 645D v 2.0

I used some poetic license on the FF name

[jppp]

Having said that, I don't think it would look any worse if the FF was 24MP

That would be fine by me as well, given that it had good enough specs for sports and action shooting, namely frame rate, high ISO and AF capabilities.

[Poit]

Yes agreed. I think MP count is less important than some of the things professional shooters are after, such as:

- High ISO performance;
- Frame rate (I wouldn't want to sacrifice this for more MP);
- AF (K-3 was a great start, but there's more ground to cover);
- Flash sync speed (been mentioned many times before); and
- Lenses (no more screw drive...enough already!)

With the capabilities of the K-3, I really don't think Pentax/Ricoh are too far off being capable of producing a FF that could seriously challenge the D800, 5d Mkiii and even compete with D4s & 1DX in terms of IQ and useability.

[ElJamoquio]

IQ has never been a problem.

AF / Flash / fast lenses have been a weakness for at least the past decade in Pentax-land. The flash discrepancy is more than just sync speed in my view, FWIW.

AF is getting better. Flash hasn't seemed to advance in a while. Fast lenses are something that Pentax has chosen not to pursue.

Most pro's (wedding photographers) aren't going to go to Pentax until Flash / AF / lens speed are addressed. It's hard to believe Pentax would release a FF without some F/2.8 zooms, but who knows, they might release some F/4's out the gate. We'll see, I guess.

Pentax certainly doesn't need to be everything to everybody, though. It doesn't seem like wedding photographers are where Pentax wants to go.

[dtmateojr]

Here's a link showing the effects of diffraction. http://www.talkemount.com/showthread.php?t=387

A 4mp at f5.6 has more details (resolution) than 16mp at f22. The latter has been reduced to 2mp because of diffraction.

[normhead]

Here's a link showing the effects of diffraction. What Does 'Diffraction-Limited' Mean?

A 4mp at f5.6 has more details (resolution) than 16mp at f22. The latter has been reduced to 2mp because of diffraction.

Only because everything in his photos are shot at infinity... I've discussed this....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/234096-sharpness-d0f.html

If you are shooting a subject close to you, and you are getting a lot more DoF at f22, then you get a lot more detail from an ƒ22 image. The test is somewhat disingenuous in that he chooses an image where the whole subject is in focus at ƒ5.6 and then shoots it at ƒ22. I use ƒ5.6 wherever I can, but sometimes it's just not the best image... sometimes ƒ22 is.
Now that's what is important to you as a photographer, understanding the balance between the two. Your statement is a bit misleading.

[dtmateojr]

I was just referring to resolution. DoF is out of the question here. There several ways to workaround DoF issues but diffraction is diffraction and there is no way around it if you get your aperture too small. Quite funny that a very good workaround for DoF is to shoot with a smaller sensor such as m43.

Let's see:

FF: 35mm at f16: hyperfocal dist = 8.5ft; effective res = 7Mp
m43: 17mm at f8: hyperfocal dist = 7.5ft; effective res = 8Mp

m43 wins in resolution and DoF although not by much.

[normhead]

I was just referring to resolution. DoF is out of the question here. There several ways to workaround DoF issues but diffraction is diffraction and there is no way around it if you get your aperture too small. Quite funny that a very good workaround for DoF is to shoot with a smaller sensor such as m43.

Let's see:

FF: 35mm at f16: hyperfocal dist = 8.5ft; effective res = 7Mp
m43: 17mm at f8: hyperfocal dist = 7.5ft; effective res = 8Mp

m43 wins in resolution and DoF although not by much.

OK, even using your criteria, lets say you have 40 lp/mm and 5 mm in clear focus, you get 200 lines of clear focus. Now lets say you have 20 lp/mm because of diffraction but you have 40 mm in acceptable focus. You have 800 lines in acceptable focus, you have four times as much resolution in the image with diffraction.... diffraction is diffraction, but if you're talking resolution, you have to look at the whole picture, not just part of the frame. Resolution is resolution... always. You can't claim more because you've artificially confined it to a small area within the frame. If you have more resolution in a very small area, but more resolution over the whole frame, you have more resolution. Trying to say DoF has nothing to do with resolution, that's test chart thinking, relevant to only a 2D world. Most of us deal with 3D environments where understanding the difference between sharp focus and acceptable focus is part of the art of photography.

If your ƒ16 image is in acceptable focus,you don't really care if your 5.6 is more acceptable, that's what acceptable focus is. Making up Mp numbers to describe resolution is just weird. That would mean the whole image is in sharp focus, that is only the case with 2D objects.



I'm not convinced you're understanding this, but I'm also not sure me saying anything else is going to help you with this.

[dtmateojr]

OK, even using your criteria, lets say you have 40 lp/mm and 5 mm in clear focus, you get 200 lines of clear focus. Now lets say you have 20 lp/mm because of diffraction but you have 40 mm in acceptable focus. You have 800 lines in acceptable focus, you have four times as much resolution in the image with diffraction.... diffraction is diffraction, but if you're talking resolution, you have to look at the whole picture, not just part of the frame. Resolution is resolution... always. You can't claim more because you've artificially confined it to a small area within the frame. If you have more resolution in a very small area, but more resolution over the whole frame, you have more resolution. Trying to say DoF has nothing to do with resolution, that's test chart thinking, relevant to only a 2D world. Most of us deal with 3D environments where understanding the difference between sharp focus and acceptable focus is part of the art of photography.

If your ƒ16 image is in acceptable focus,you don't really care if your 5.6 is more acceptable, that's what acceptable focus is. Making up Mp numbers to describe resolution is just weird. That would mean the whole image is in sharp focus, that is only the case with 2D objects.



I'm not convinced you're understanding this, but I'm also not sure me saying anything else is going to help you with this.

If we go by your argument then I have already proven that a m43 will run circles around a full frame by virtue of its smaller sensor (see my sample calculation above). Are you saying that because of this DoF "superiority" of the m43 over FF that the former is capable of more resolution?

[normhead]

If we go by your argument then I have already proven that a m43 will run circles around a full frame by virtue of its smaller sensor (see my sample calculation above). Are you saying that because of this DoF "superiority" of the m43 over FF that the former is capable of more resolution?

In some circumstances it's possible yes. Higher Mp is one of the factors in higher resolution. Like a 24 Mp APS-c will easily out resolve a 12 Mp FF... FF or APS-c or 4/3 the only question. My own observation is that a 24 Mp FF has about the same resolution as a 24 Mp FF or probably a 24 Mp 4/3 at base ISO. 5% to 10% higher for FF than APS-c but pretty close. It isn't just the format that determines resolution.

Within the area of the crop sensor, you'll get more resolution out of an APS-c as opposed to an FF because it's 24 Mp are crammed into a smaller space. And if you could have a 4/3 Mp sensor with 24 Mp crammed into an even smaller space.

Last summer my buddy with his Canon bridge camera and 50x zoom got better pictures of a merlin we photographed than I did with my A-400 and 1.7 TC on APS-c. Sometimes life just sucks that way.

[dtmateojr]

In some circumstances it's possible yes. Higher Mp is one of the factors in higher resolution. Like a 24 Mp APS-c will easily out resolve a 12 Mp FF... FF or APS-c or 4/3 the only question. My own observation is that a 24 Mp FF has about the same resolution as a 24 Mp FF or probably a 24 Mp 4/3 at base ISO. 5% to 10% higher for FF than APS-c but pretty close. It isn't just the format that determines resolution.



Within the area of the crop sensor, you'll get more resolution out of an APS-c as opposed to an FF because it's 24 Mp are crammed into a smaller space. And if you could have a 4/3 Mp sensor with 24 Mp crammed into an even smaller space.



Last summer my buddy with his Canon bridge camera and 50x zoom got better pictures of a merlin we photographed than I did with my A-400 and 1.7 TC on APS-c. Sometimes life just sucks that way.

Well yes and no. A 16mp m43 will outresolve any camera today assuming that the lens isn't diffraction limited. Given the same pixel density and same aperture, the ff will outresolve smaller sensors. DoF has got nothing to do with it. Your argument on lp/mm as a factor of DoF is flawed and can easily be refuted. If the lines run "vertically" from foreground to background instead of horizontally from left to right then DoF will have no effect on the number of lines resolved. Resolution will always be limited by the diffraction limit at the focal point.

[normhead]

Unfortunately you claim you refuted my argument, i think you just misrepresented it... such is life on the internet. I'd demonstrate, but you can spend your whole life trying to convince people of the obvious. How late do I want to stay up because "someone on the internet is wrong."?

[jsherman999]

Here's a link showing the effects of diffraction. What Does 'Diffraction-Limited' Mean?

A 4mp at f5.6 has more details (resolution) than 16mp at f22. The latter has been reduced to 2mp because of diffraction.

Here's his test crops:



Assuming the test is valid (no shake, lens not compromised mechanically while stopped down - that lens looks really, really bad at f/22, but...) The f/11 16MP image is remarkably better than the f/5.6 lesser-MP image, though. And it looks to me like the f/22 image there could stand for a bit of sharpening. If you try to sharpen the f/5.6 4MP image even a llittle, it would get really ugly.

Here's Roger Cicala's diffraction tests at an increasing F-stop:



Note ^^ how the f/22 shot tightens up after a little sharpening?

Back to the original link: of course, the most resolution there would be delivered at 16MP f/5.6.

He does get a conclusion right, though: "Diffraction is a property of the lens and not a disadvantage of having smaller pixels (higher pixel density)."




.