[reeftool]

There, that is basically what Pentax is all about. Even if they make a 1Dx for $800, someone would still complain.
I personally would like something around 20-28MP, but already some people are claiming that 36MP is still not enough. Even 50MP is just a "compromise" for them. Then you have the other extreme, who want a 12MP nocturnal beast like the Sony A7s. I just hope Pentax doesn't try to please too many people and mess it all up. Better to do one thing really well than to try making various models, functions, that ultimately all fall short individually. So I'll say I don't really care about MP, it will definitely have enough for my use. And the files will probably be too big for my current storage anyway.. and that is part of why I will wait a long while before considering FF

I do a lot of sports shooting and often in bad light. Having good high ISO performance and a high burst rate are more important than megapixels to a large segment of photographers. The big boys have multiple FF bodies available and have products that at least try to satisfy both the sports/event photographers and the landscape crowd. So which group does Pentax cater to? They will also have to compete on price so my guess is that they will build something like the D750 in the 24Mp range with a price in the $2000 range.

I won't complain because APS-C works fine for my uses and I'll probably always keep using that format. It would be nice to have one of each and use what works the best for that days shooting. I've had my K5 for 4 1/2 years and I have beat the crap out of it. I know it's time to start looking for a new camera. It will probably be a K3 but I will look at the new FF camera when it's released.

[PentaxRev]

We're all just speculating at this point, but I would guess 36. I spoke with a Ricoh/Pentax rep at a trade show in St. Louis just before Christmas and he said he hasn't been given details but thinks they will try to make the new full frame camera not much more expensive than the K-3 was when it was first introduced or their present buyers won't purchase it. If that is the case I'm sure Ricoh/Pentax will not being going with a 50 meg sensor. It's also hard to believe they would not bump up the resolution over the K-3. I think 24 meg would be a mistake after making buyers wait so long to be able to buy a full frame Pentax. On the other hand, if they're really committed to staying under the $2000 price point they just might.

[Winder]

Whatever sensor they choose, there will be a slew of unhappy shooters. I would prefer something like the sensor in the D4s but the peepers who spend their days looking at 100% crops on 32 inch monitors will probably ignite a firestorm if they don't build something along the lines of the D810

The D810 out performs the D4s until you get over 800 ISO. For most people shooting at ISO 100 - 800 the D810 will provide better results and more detail. The same can be seen with the A7s and A7R. The A7s doesn't start to out perform the A7R until 6400 ISO. And you have it backwards. The D4s looks better at 100% crops for pixel peepers than the D810. It in the prints where the D810 really separates itself.

The Real Megapixel Myth
Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise - DxOMark
The Online Photographer: Myths About Megapixels (...And, Does the D800 Have Too Many?)

There are multiple advantages to higher MP sensors. DxO's PRIME noise reduction is one example of a RAW processor that really works better with higher pixel density files. Removing the AA-filter makes it easier for the image processor to tell the difference between color noise and color artifact (moire). Low MP sensors only have an advantage in the extreme ISOs for the pixel peepers who look at 100% crops.

[osv]

36mp is the most logical scenario.

[disconnekt]

I would say 24mp, because how many people really need a 36mp camera for what they do? Those who do need it would only be a small percentage, while I'm sure a majority of people would want something like Nikon's D750 (but with a higher FPS)

---------- Post added 03-23-15 at 06:40 PM ----------

Plus, it's what Pentax does with the sensor. They can share the same sensor (either from Sony or whoever they get it from) that's also a competitors camera, but blow it out of the water with whatever tweeks they do to it.

[Tesla]

I'm guessing 36MP

I think they'll go higher than 24MP and probably will wait till the next 645 has a higher MP sensor before using a 50MP in FF.

[oxidized]

So, if I was Pentax and if the 50Mpixel sensor was available, I'd use a native 50Mpixel sensor, no AA filter, and decline the FF camera into 3 models:
- Model A: $3500, 50Mpixels, 24Mpixels in crop mode (same as K-3)
- Model B: $2400, 36Mpixels, 16Mpixels in crop mode (same as K-5IIs)
- Model C: $1600, 24Mpixels, 12Mpixels in crop mode (same as Kx)

Same body, same hardware, same software, but different firmware for each version.

There are a variety of reasons why you wouldn't want to do this, regardless of how similar the cameras are. One is that every additional version (regardless of how similar) has maintenance and manufacturing costs associated with it (software, production capacity etc.). Also, the greater the number of FF models you offer, the bigger the issue of product cannibalization...

[philbaum]

One of the co-owners of the gallery i joined - had a D800 with 36mp. Complained to me that it gave him fuzzy pictures so he bought the D750 24mp camera when it came out. Gave the D800 to his painter wife He's now very happy with his Nikon FF.

I've read that the D800 needs the best technique to get good pics out of it. It's also my impression that the D750 has been a very popular camera with the Nikon crowd. I assume that popularity of a 24mp FF is for a good reason. So perhaps a 36mp sensor has its drawbacks as well.

So my point is - a 24mp FF sensor might be a better choice for a FF camera. The sensor should be cheaper than a 36mp FF sensor; it will still have superior DR and low light performance to a K3. The type of individual that will buy a Pentax FF will most likely know that there's more to a sensor than the MP count.

Finally, here's a DXO comparison between the K3, D750 and the D810.

Nikon D750 versus Nikon D810 versus Pentax K-3 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

So the D750 with 24mp is superior in DR to the D810 and far superior to a K3. So a person who thinks a 24mp isn't superior to a 24mp K3, probably doesn't deserve one :-)

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

One of the co-owners of the gallery i joined - had a D800 with 36mp. Complained to me that it gave him fuzzy pictures so he bought the D750 24mp camera when it came out. Gave the D800 to his painter wife He's now very happy with his Nikon FF.

I've read that the D800 needs the best technique to get good pics out of it. It's also my impression that the D750 has been a very popular camera with the Nikon crowd. I assume that popularity of a 24mp FF is for a good reason. So perhaps a 36mp sensor has its drawbacks as well.

So my point is - a 24mp FF sensor might be a better choice for a FF camera. The sensor should be cheaper than a 36mp FF sensor; it will still have superior DR and low light performance to a K3. The type of individual that will buy a Pentax FF will most likely know that there's more to a sensor than the MP count.

Finally, here's a DXO comparison between the K3, D750 and the D810.

Nikon D750 versus Nikon D810 versus Pentax K-3 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

So the D750 with 24mp is superior in DR to the D810 and far superior to a K3. So a person who thinks a 24mp isn't superior to a 24mp K3, probably doesn't deserve one :-)

are you sure with regard to DR it looks to me as if the D810 is ahead of the game to me

[rawr]

I thought asahi man had already put this issue to bed in a previous thread.
So prepare for 36MP.

[biz-engineer]

It's very simple, there is a tradeoff when designing pixels, when it gets smaller, the performance decrease as the size decreases up to a point where it meet the performance limits of the signal conditioning circuitry. The best performance point is achieved when pixel perf and signal conditioning perf are balanced. The pixel size of the D8xx or K-5xx reach this optimal point. In DXO, look at the details of color accuracy and compare different sensors at different lighting conditions. 16Mpixel CMOS APS-C, or 36Mpixels CMOS full frame is kind of a sweet spot in terms of technical tradeoff.

[civiletti]

I've read that the D800 needs the best technique to get good pics out of it.

Lots of people write goofy things. We can all read them. It makes them no less goofy.

[Sandy Hancock]

Canon have proved that 50 on FF is no match for 50 on a bigger sensor.
Pentax surely knows that, and also it would also be confusing against the 645z - so that's not going to happen.

Personally, I would like 24, pitched to be a high ISO, high frame rate professional sport/event killer to rival the D4 and 1D variants, but that will alienate the significant prosumer appetite.

I would be very surprised if it isn't 36.

[Clavius]

Personally, I would like 24, pitched to be a high ISO, high frame rate professional sport/event killer to rival the D4 and 1D variants, but that will alienate the significant prosumer appetite.

24mp on APS-C for the reach and 24 on FF for wide angle and low light performance would make an awesome duo. The significant prosumer appetite is much harder to please then the smaller pro market though.

[mecrox]

It's not just the sensor, it's how the camera-maker treats it in software and electronics. I'd have thought Ricoh could try to obtain the best 36 mpx sensor they can and then put their engineers to work on its characteristics - deep shadows that can be lifted without banding and colour issues, and highlights which roll off very smoothly instead of clipping abruptly (a weakness of digital which could do with improving, imho). These things contribute to a fine image every bit as much as number of mpx. Indeed in some ways, this would be what someone is buying when they buy a particular brand - the sensor and its electronic output can be purchased from several outfits, but only one has an interpretation of that output which appeals. There's a bit of art in all this as well as science and we know that Ricoh has a good track record here. 36 mpx sounds the sweet spot going forward for a year or three. 24 mpx isn't enough of a jump from APS-C and 50 mpx on FF is overkill and with problems of its own, too, at least for now.