[ElJamoquio]

Yup. You can shoot jpgs and put them directly on the web at full resolution or something. I dunno. Sounds like a silly scenario for Pentax to go after.

To be honest though I think the jpg compression would take care of the pixel noise... or at least it could.

What workflow are you proposing that would make a 12 mp frame desireable?

[johnmflores]

A 12 megapickle FF Pentax would be a huge disappointment to so many people here, and will cause much wringing of hands and threats to jump to another system.

So it's probably going to happen. That is The Pentax Way.

[Na Horuk]

Hm, but thinking about this more.. it would be a good sensor for a DSLR. A weird competition to the D4 at a much lower price. Amazing noise performance and burst rate. And 12MP, while it would limit print size, it would be amazing for web photos - where a lot of photos these days end up anyway. How many people still order prints? So many museums, operas, parties, sports events, clubs, organizations, etc. only need photos for online use, where even 12MP is a lot. If the camera would also have Wifi or some other integration to email and social media..
And Sony probably does want this sensor to be used in other cameras as well, just to make some extra money on the "quantity" side, so the price shouldn't be too high

It shouldn't be the Pentax flagship, but it would certainly be a powerful product. And it can be just put in the K-3 body without the SR, since due to the amazing noise performance you don't need SR anyway. Considering the space or FF sensor vs crop sensor+SR, it makes sense

[normhead]

I'm not sure what the down side is to a 12MP high ISO sensor. OK my screen, which is huge compared to what most are using is 2560x1440 that's a little less than 4k, so the idea that 12 Mp is only for screens is false. Second, I've sold 10 Mp images at 20x30 inches, so the idea that you need more than 12 Mp for printing, is also false. It really depends on the image. every image is going to favour a subset of the population. From a marketing standpoint there's no evidence that the segment of the market that prefer 16 MP images is larger or smaller than those who prefer prints from 36 MP images and there's some evidence that they can't even tell the difference.

The big drawback to Pentax and APS-c in general is noise in low light. A camera that could be pulled out in low light situations would be the perfect companion to a K-3. Plus it would give folks "more control of DoF." for those for whom that is critical.

To be sure it wouldn't satisfy those who want higher resolution but having a camera that would give me a stop or two over everyone else's low light performance including all existing FFs beside the D4s would be awesome.

But to me, higher resolution has always been the weakest link of the FF argument. There have been so many inconclusive demonstrations, that at this point I think it's safe to say higher resolution does not lead to more appreciation of a photographers images, except in a very small portion of the population. It's important for some but certainly not all, and many can't choose which image they like more when choosing between 36 MP and 16 Mp images. And really I like my K-3 more for the smaller AF point and more accurate AF than for the increase in resolution, for which I've seen no noticeable difference.

I tend to think 2 stops is worth investigating, 3 stops is worth buying, a 3 stop noise difference with corresponding maintenance of resolution at high ISO would be simply awesome. Especially with preliminary suggestions indicating that DR is maintained at high ISO, that in itself is a huge deal.

To me, just the idea that you could get to 2400 ISO and maintain you DR is in itself ground breaking and because the sensor is in the A7s, there currently isn't a DSLR using it. I mean, how unique is that?

I have enough money sitting in my 645D account, I could pre-order this camera were Pentax to release it. But I tend to see things differently enough that just the fact that I'd buy it means it isn't going to happen. Call it the normhead kiss of death. I'm just more influenced by what I see in real life than by the hype I read everywhere, which essentially represents what camera manufacturers have to sell as a lot more desirable than it often is. They have to sell what they have, but i don't have to like what they have.

A 12Mp low light sensor would get Pentax some of my money as it would be purchased instead of a second hand 645D, which would make them nothing, but , I'm one guy, and one guy is worth zilch to any modern corporation.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-13-2014 at 08:23 AM.

[Winder]

12MP is fine for many professional photographers. You can't crop nearly as much, but if you need reach then K-3 is a better choice.

The 5D original and the D700/D700s were the 12MP cameras of most FF professional wedding photographers. I used my 5D until it was almost completely shot.

I like the 36MP on a FF for crop mode and no AA filter, but I don't care for having to add a couple more TBs of storage every year.

You Tube

You Tube

409600 ISO is not going to be usable for stills, but I shoot a lot of events and music where lighting is horrible and flash is forbidden. The 12MP Sony appears to offer the ability to get usable shots that are impossible with my K-3 or Contax 645.

[ElJamoquio]

Could anyone tell me a workflow they use in which a 12 MP picture is an advantage - and not just 'almost as good' as the much more flexible 24 and 36 MP options?

Personally I don't think Pentax's first digital FF camera will be a niche, particularly a niche for videographers.

[monochrome]

Personally I don't think Pentax's first digital FF camera will be a niche, particularly a niche for videographers.

It doesn't have to be the first FF body. Could do a D800 competitor as a small 645z and then this video / low light targeted successor a few months later. Plus lenses, lenses, lenses and more lenses.

[Rondec]

What I don't understand is why a company couldn't release a 36 megapixel full frame camera, but have an "auto-binning" option where the camera would (if desired by the user) give you a 12 megapixel RAW file. Surely this would give all of the "benefits" of shooting a 12 megapixel camera, but allow in good light situations (or if more cropping is desired) to give a larger photo with full resolution.

The biggest negatives to having 24 or 36 megapixels really don't have to do with high iso, they have to do with file sizes -- slowing frame rates and making post processing tougher. But if technology is the same, I don't buy that high iso files viewed at the same size will be better with fewer megapixels.

Video is obviously a different story, but that's not a big deal to me...

[Na Horuk]

Could anyone tell me a workflow they use in which a 12 MP picture is an advantage -

Well a lower MP count gives you a shallower equivalent DoF when comparing a larger MP photo.. lol sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously, the reason this Sony sensor is attractive is not because it is 12MP, but because it appears to have the best noise performance available on the market right now. Of course, more tests and reviews are needed, sure, but still.
The main drawback of the 12MP is cropping being much more limited.

but have an "auto-binning" option where the camera would

The pixel binning idea is great and I also wonder why its not done for still photography. There are quite a few cool features that digital sensors would allow, but for some reason most brands don't seem to be interested in it

[johnmflores]

Personally I don't think Pentax's first digital FF camera will be a niche, particularly a niche for videographers.

I got bad news for you...every Pentax camera is a niche camera.

[ElJamoquio]

I got bad news for you...every Pentax camera is a niche camera.

Niche*Niche = 2nd order niche, which is a bad idea, which is what I was referring to. Niche is OK. Double niche is not.

---------- Post added 04-13-14 at 12:08 PM ----------

But seriously, the reason this Sony sensor is attractive is not because it is 12MP, but because it appears to have the best noise performance available on the market right now.

The noise performance is no better than 36MP or 24MP if you post-process.

If you don't post-process you're using jpg.

If you use jpg it's incredibly straightforward to have noise reduction and jpg engine take care of some noise automatically. The K-5 does this in camera and back in the day the performance appeared to be better than Lightroom, etc.

Nowadays maybe it's the other way?

But should Pentax target an audience that wants a FF (niche) yet doesn't want to postprocess (in FF, definitely a niche) but don't want it to be done with firmware/software in camera (another niche)?

Niche^3?

The 12MP sensor is a niche of a niche of a niche for stills, and Pentax historically isn't a video camera. Pentax's execs know enough not to greenlight the project.

[Winder]

The noise performance is no better than 36MP or 24MP if you post-process.

Actually, the the reverse is true. Just as the K-5II (16MP files) give more processing latitude than the K-3 (24MP) files. Download some D4s RAW files and play with them. You have a lot of room for recovery or to pull/push the image. If my exposure is correct then my K-3 gives me excellent files, but they don't have the processing headroom of my K-5.

There are some real drawbacks to the 12MP sensor, but they have to do with cropping and the need for an AA filter. If Pentax takes the select-able AA filter of the K-3 and applies to the a 12MP FF then you solve one of the problems.

The 12MP FF sensor will produce better images than a 16MP APS-C, and I don't see people complaining about the K-5II images. The surface area of the FF is 2.33 times greater and requires 50% less magnification for equal output compared to the APS-C. The smaller the sensor the more resolution you need to match FF output.

I don't think Pentax will do it, but then I never would have produced the Q or the K-01, so Pentax does a lot of things I wouldn't have thought they would do.

[ElJamoquio]

Actually, the the reverse is true. Just as the K-5II (16MP files) give more processing latitude than the K-3 (24MP) files. Download some D4s RAW files and play with them. You have a lot of room for recovery or to pull/push the image.

If you're looking at 1:1, you're right.
If you're looking at equal magnification, you're wrong.

Thought experiment:

36MP sensor. Four adjacent pixels give light-intensity answers of

4 5

3 4


9 MP sensor. One pixel gives light-intensity answer of

4





Information is lost with the 9 MP sensor. You might not want that information sometimes but you can't get it back once you've lost it.

[Na Horuk]

The noise performance is no better than 36MP or 24MP if you post-process.

lol have you seen the sensor performance? Or are you just assuming the 36 and 24 MP sensors have exact same characteristics as this 12MP one, only difference being MP?
And if there is no difference in noise between high and low MP, why is the Nikon D4 so low? Meh

[Winder]

If you're looking at 1:1, you're right.
If you're looking at equal magnification, you're wrong.

Thought experiment:

36MP sensor. Four adjacent pixels give light-intensity answers of

4 5

3 4


9 MP sensor. One pixel gives light-intensity answer of

4





Information is lost with the 9 MP sensor. You might not want that information sometimes but you can't get it back once you've lost it.

IF the sensors have the same DR and S/N ratio. More mega-pickles is better if all else is equal.

1:1 is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about printing at say A3+ where the FF sensor is magnified 183 times and the ASP-C has to be magnified 430 times. The APS-C has to have better resolution (more MPs) and requires better glass to generate the same quality A3+ print.