[ChristianRock]

Doesn't Canon make their own sensors as well? For some reason I thought they did.

[ElJamoquio]

Doesn't Canon make their own sensors as well? For some reason I thought they did.

Canon makes their own sensors.

[Winder]

I think it makes more sense to go 36MP. Given all of the APS-C lenses Pentax has, the 36MP could work well in ASP-C mode and give users (& Pentax) time. The 24MP in crop mode is a little light. The resolution of the 36MP without AA filter is really nice to have. Unless they can get the 24MP to match the DR and high ISO of the new 12MP, I would prefer the 36. You can apply a lot of NR to the 36MP files and still print large.

[ElJamoquio]

The 36, 24, and probably 12 all have the same DR and high ISO SNR.

[Poit]

I think it makes more sense to go 36MP. Given all of the APS-C lenses Pentax has, the 36MP could work well in ASP-C mode and give users (& Pentax) time. The 24MP in crop mode is a little light. The resolution of the 36MP without AA filter is really nice to have. Unless they can get the 24MP to match the DR and high ISO of the new 12MP, I would prefer the 36. You can apply a lot of NR to the 36MP files and still print large.

I'm inclined to disagree. From a business perspective, I think it would make more sense to go 24MP, for the following reasons:

- The 645Z has been positioned as the professional portrait / studio camera in the Pentax line-up. A 36MP FF camera may encroach on that product's target audience, particularly assuming the FF will cost much less;
- The remaining capability gap in the Pentax lineup is reportage / wedding style photography (ie requiring excellent high ISO noise, good frame-rates). It would make sense for them to address that gap with a FF offering, and 24MP would be a better option (much better potential frame-rates and high-ISO noise than 36MP);
- Crop mode for 24MP would still give a very acceptable 12MP, whilst also giving owners an incentive to buy FF lenses (they won't want crop mode to be so good in resolution that people aren't interested in buying the new lenses they've invested so much time and money developing).

I think 24MP is probably the sweet spot in terms of satisfying as many requirements as possible.

[ElJamoquio]

I think most wedding photogs shoot raw, for many reasons including the increased DR.

Since they have to go into a post-processing utility anyway there's no high ISO advantage to lower MP.

[jsherman999]

I'm inclined to disagree. From a business perspective, I think it would make more sense to go 24MP, for the following reasons:

- The 645Z has been positioned as the professional portrait / studio camera in the Pentax line-up. A 36MP FF camera may encroach on that product's target audience, particularly assuming the FF will cost much less;

But the existing 36MP FF bodies from Nikon and Sony have already encroached that. Pentax not delivering 36MP just means their FF body starts out, in one significant way, behind.

- The remaining capability gap in the Pentax lineup is reportage / wedding style photography (ie requiring excellent high ISO noise, good frame-rates). It would make sense for them to address that gap with a FF offering, and 24MP would be a better option (much better potential frame-rates and high-ISO noise than 36MP);

Frame rates would be a bit better, but high-ISO noise would not. (unless it's a brand new sensor we haven't seen yet.)

- Crop mode for 24MP would still give a very acceptable 12MP, whilst also giving owners an incentive to buy FF lenses (they won't want crop mode to be so good in resolution that people aren't interested in buying the new lenses they've invested so much time and money developing).

It would actually be about 10.5MP cropped, not 12 - and it would be much nicer to have crop mode exactly emulate what we get now from the K-5, no? That way any current K-5 owner could upgrade to a FF body, and all their aps-c only lenses don't miss a step.

I don't think 16MP in crop mode keeps upgraders from buying new lenses throughout their body ownership, but it does make folks who have aps-c-only lenses not think that they would be wasting their money buying a FF body. It provides transition phase people can feel good about.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-07-2014 at 01:27 PM.

[DDoram]

I would prefer the 36 MP sensor as the DR and IQ are great nd Pentax needs to get attention by using the latest sensors.

Dale

[WaveDancer]

I would prefer the 36 MP sensor as the DR and IQ are great nd Pentax needs to get attention by using the latest sensors.

Dale

... and I'd advise them to solve first the problems with the K3 before they start new things. May be they will burry the K3 and bring a K3II like Nikon who did it with the d600/610.

[ElJamoquio]

Is the K3 really that bad? Doubt it...

[Poit]

I think most wedding photogs shoot raw, for many reasons including the increased DR.

Since they have to go into a post-processing utility anyway there's no high ISO advantage to lower MP.

I'm a wedding photographer. There's only so much noise recovery one can do in post.

It's the difference between recoverable and non-recoverable (to an acceptable standard) that is important.

---------- Post added 05-10-14 at 07:27 AM ----------

But the existing 36MP FF bodies from Nikon and Sony have already encroached that. Pentax not delivering 36MP just means their FF body starts out, in one significant way, behind.




Frame rates would be a bit better, but high-ISO noise would not. (unless it's a brand new sensor we haven't seen yet.)




It would actually be about 10.5MP cropped, not 12 - and it would be much nicer to have crop mode exactly emulate what we get now from the K-5, no? That way any current K-5 owner could upgrade to a FF body, and all their aps-c only lenses don't miss a step.

I don't think 16MP in crop mode keeps upgraders from buying new lenses throughout their body ownership, but it does make folks who have aps-c-only lenses not think that they would be wasting their money buying a FF body. It provides transition phase people can feel good about.

You are overlooking the flagship professional bodies from Nikon (D4) and Canon (1D).

Are they 36MP?

Ever wondered why they aren't?

As I said, 24MP would still offer acceptable crop resolution (be it 12 or 10) to keep the DA lens owners interested, whilst retaining (to a degree) the advantages offered by lower MP.

It would be the best option, assuming Pentax are interested in the pro market.

[ElJamoquio]

What are the advantages of lower MP that you're claiming?

I count one advantage. Smaller file size (which results in faster read/transfer times).

There's no more noise in larger MP's than there is in smaller MP files.

[Poit]

Read reviews about the D4 and 1D.

You might want to let Canon and Nikon know they've made a huge mistake...

[ElJamoquio]

Read reviews about the D4 and 1D.

You might want to let Canon and Nikon know they've made a huge mistake...

It's not a huge mistake. People who buy those cameras often want fast framerates. They often want to immediately provide pictures somewhere else (uploaded/wifi'd), which is easier with smaller filesizes.

Even if the file sizes were magically exactly the same, it would at most be a small mistake, justified by the fact that Canon/Nikon get to brag that their flagship cameras use internally sourced chips, rather than the (superior to Canon/roughly equal to Nikon) Sony chip.

Any advantage or disadvantage in terms of noise of those chips have are based on the technology of the chip/read system itself. It's not related to the megapixels of the camera.


As an aside, I would say an 'appeal to someone trying to sell you something' is even worse than an 'appeal to authority'.

[jsherman999]

[/COLOR]

You are overlooking the flagship professional bodies from Nikon (D4) and Canon (1D).

Are they 36MP?

Ever wondered why they aren't?

I know why they aren't - primarily because those bodies are in part selling to the crowd that wants high FPS, high throughput.

Regardless, the question was between 24MP and 36MP, and the option doesn't include proprietary sensors made by Nikon and Canon - ones they don;t plan to sel to anyone else.

We'd presume the sensors available to Pentax would be (probably) the current Sony EXMORs, or the descendant of those. And like I said, unless they next generation shows the 24MP version better in SNR and DR than the 36MP version, there's no advantage goung with 24MP unless you want a slightly higher rame rate and more storage capability. Otherwise, 36MP gives you better... everything else.

24MP would still be fantastic, but why not catch up to 36MP? Why start out behind?

It would be the best option, assuming Pentax are interested in the pro market.

I don't know why they would be interested in the pro market very much, beyond some visibility. Pros make up a relatively small part of the market. Pentax knows they need to market to amateurs and hobbyists and enthusiasts (same word for the same folks ).