[chd]

Usually as photo sites get smaller you are able to capture slightly more DR, while the image may appear slightly noisier this is from the ability for the sensor and its increased resolution you are able to better record the variation with how the light is being captured.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is at all correct... you get more dynamic range and less noise from *larger* photo sites (pixels). Ability to hold more photons = more possible values between black and white. The accuracy of the sensor site is proportional to the amount of light it can collect.

Photon shot noise also goes up with photo site size, but not as fast; it goes up roughly as the square root of the number of photons collected, so larger site = better signal to noise ratio.

[Belnan]

I think 36 MP is a good resolution and the K1 already has a great body. Slap in this sensor Let's digg into the possible Sony 36MP sensor specs and performance! - sonyalpharumors
And put in the K3-III internals and call it a day.

Clearly this won't happen but I think it would be sweet.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I'm sorry but I don't think this is at all correct... you get more dynamic range and less noise from *larger* photo sites (pixels). Ability to hold more photons = more possible values between black and white. The accuracy of the sensor site is proportional to the amount of light it can collect.

DR is a function of how much light is recorded over an area take 3 different cameras with very different size photo sites


Using the very same DX area they are running all pretty equal as for DR

If you have one photo site capturing 2 times the signal or 2 photo sites that capture half the signal ( 2 X1 = 2) or (1X2=2) they both equal 2

DR is governed by noise how we view that noise is dependent on how much DR that we can obtain



Here is the same sensor one reading is viewed with more enlargement and the other with less thus giving you very different DR ranges

How we view that signal to noise ratio is the key

If there was an increase in performance between the cameras, then would see a difference between the K3 and the k1 when they both capture the same amount of light, but we don't

[clackers]

Usually as photo sites get smaller you are able to capture slightly more DR,

Completely incorrect, Ian - again!

See for example, Lens Rentals | Blog


Quote: "


Noise and high ISO performance: Smaller pixels are worse. Sensor size doesn’t matter.
Dynamic Range: Very small pixels (point and shoot size) suffer at higher ISO, sensor size doesn’t matter."


You can't cheat shot noise by waving hands around and repeating fallacies again and again.

---

Last edited by clackers; 09-28-2022 at 09:19 PM.

[clackers]

I think that there are some misunderstandings regarding pixel size. The main light collection factor is the sensor size.

No, see posts 77 and 80, Roland!

[Fogel70]

Completely incorrect, Ian - again!

See for example, Lens Rentals | Blog


Quote: "


Noise and high ISO performance: Smaller pixels are worse. Sensor size doesn’t matter.
Dynamic Range: Very small pixels (point and shoot size) suffer at higher ISO, sensor size doesn’t matter."


You can't cheat shot noise by waving hands around and repeating fallacies again and again.

The example you supply is an over 10 year old piece by Roger Cicala. And it was a comment on current tech of the time. At a time when Pentax just had released K-01.
I do not think he would come to the same conclusion today. Can you find any piece written in recent years that come to the same conclution?

He wrote that before the use on BSI sensors which to a large degree defeats the advantage of using larger pixels.

Looking at DXOmark ISO performance score (Sport) he refers to. It is today a clear correlation between sensor size and noise but not so much in pixel size.
Sensors Database - DXOMARK

Medium format camera comes out on top, then FF cameras with various pixel count, and then smaller sensors.
The top 4 FF cameras are a mix of 12, 24, and 47 MP. 60+ MP sensors score better than older 12-16 MP cameras.

[Roland Karlsson]

I think that a KP - FF should be a completely new device. Let's think what a weak battery KP has for such a powerful machine. The design of the handle should be changed to fit a serious battery, and that will change the size and, implicitly, the weight. Of course, the battery grip should also be able to be used with the AA battery drawer. Obviously, the rest will not be able to stay at the level of 2017, which would make it compete with K1- ... It was stopped to make way for K3 - iii.

I surely do not want a KP-FF. There is nothing wrong with a K-1 III with the AF from K-3 III. That is what I want. The track KP-FF do only muddy the track for the simplest solution. We want a solid camera and not yet another commercial experiment/try.

There are three things that worriers me with K-1 III

• They remove GPS
• It will take too long time
• It will get too expensive

I have no worry about the K-1 form factor being any problem.

---------- Post added 09-29-22 at 01:29 AM ----------

No, see posts 77 and 80, Roland!

No clackers. It is true. There is no problems e.g. with a 50 MP FF camera regarding low light performance.

Decreasing the number of pixels will decrease the potential resolution proportionally.

Increasing the the number of pixels will decrease the low light performance slightly.

Everything is a compromise.

For sports, 20 MP is optimal.

For stationary objects, 100 MP is optimal.

For you? I do not know.

For me? I assume 60 MP. But 36 MP works just fine also.

[Erictator]

Yes, SOONER than later please!

I don't care about more MP... but we WILL need a new sensor, if only for better read-out speeds to enhance over-all camera performance. I'll take whatever the latest greatest FF sensor that is in similar or slightly more MP they have that Pentax will work their magic on without sacrificing DR. Love Pentax RAW's!!!

The main improvement for me is A/F and over all speed of handling. And for crying out loud, I could care less about max FPS if it means filling the buffer in one short burst. I'd rather be able to lean on the shutter and have it just take pics until the memory card is full without stopping and crashing, even if that's not near the top competitors FPS speed. Or at least have a menu option to switch it to that mode, Max FPS mode vs/continuous shooting mode. Yeah, that'll work. Other than that, keep the current form factor and just build the thing already!

Heh, rant over.
Eric

[Roland Karlsson]

Yes, SOONER than later please!

I don't care about more MP... but we WILL need a new sensor, if only for better read-out speeds to enhance over-all camera performance. I'll take whatever the latest greatest FF sensor that is in similar or slightly more MP they have that Pentax will work their magic on without sacrificing DR. Love Pentax RAW's!!!

The main improvement for me is A/F and over all speed of handling. And for crying out loud, I could care less about max FPS if it means filling the buffer in one short burst. I'd rather be able to lean on the shutter and have it just take pics until the memory card is full without stopping and crashing, even if that's not near the top competitors FPS speed. Or at least have a menu option to switch it to that mode, Max FPS mode vs/continuous shooting mode. Yeah, that'll work. Other than that, keep the current form factor and just build the thing already!

Heh, rant over.
Eric

I, more or less agree, I will accept the latest sensor technology as long it is not too few pixels. I would prefer 50+, but if it is less, then so be it.

One more thing - if they remove the GPS I will be very disappointed.

I bought my “slightly used” K1 in January and feel I have only scratched the surface of the beautiful images I can create with it so have no hankering for an updated version just at this moment.
I’ll get back to you in six years.

[house]

I surely do not want a KP-FF. There is nothing wrong with a K-1 III with the AF from K-3 III. That is what I want. The track KP-FF do only muddy the track for the simplest solution. We want a solid camera and not yet another commercial experiment/try.

There are three things that worriers me with K-1 III

They remove GPS
It will take too long time
It will get too expensive


I have no worry about the K-1 form factor being any problem.

FF KP would be very interesting. A better designed KP naturally, with a top lcd. The actual KP was clearly a sort of first attempt that needs honing. The K-1 has all the performance I need but it has bulk I don't need. With FF KP i mean a body with the goal of being as compact as possible at the cost of features or performance.

I do value gps highly and from what I've heard no one has achieved good enough smartphone integration.

[Wheatfield]

How many mega pixels does one need?

I love my k1ii, but I can't email the full size image on Gmail. Not even the jpg file.

36 mp seems plenty. Maybe even too many for the non pro person...

Actually, it is the amateur market that presses for more megapixels. For most real pros, the camera body is the least important piece if gear. Lenses and quality lighting equipment are more important.
Note, I have seen weekend warrior class "pros" shooting with a Rebel and a kit zoom with a shoe mounted flash fixed to the hot shoe. For myself, a <stereotype> soccer mom who shoots weddings on Saturdays isn't a pro, she's a hobby photographer who is stringing out a few bucks on weekends. It gets her away from the kids for a while.</stereotype>
In fact I started my career as a photographer doing just that. I started shooting weddings when I was 14, going out and assisting a teacher at my high school who was a very busy weekend warrior.
I never called myself a pro until over half my income came from photography, and truth be to tell, I switched back and forth from making a better income in the darkroom to making the lions share from shooting jobs.

Anyway, as a pro, medium format was my main camera because I did a lot of portraiture. I did some stuff with 35mm, but not a lot.
I shot large format for pleasure, though having the 4x5 opened the door to some pro work I wouldn't have been able to do.

Well, that was a ramble away from the topic.

[beli_delfin]

OM1 ? - you realise that you are comparing the full frame K-1 with a micro 4/3 ?

Of course. Both are photographic tools, don't they? Use both, and just stressed out, that weather sealed camera could be made (much) lighter without sacrificing quality. Sensor size does not contribute so much to weight, but mirror assembly do.



From the points you make, I wonder why you are even interested in a full frame DSLR. If you want a small, light camera and are happy with 24 MPx, there are plenty of mirrorless APS-C and micro 4/3 cameras on the market that will do that for you.

Short answer: use of old (adapted), legacy lenses for landscape work. K1 excells there. K1 with optical viewfinder is a joy to use and thus a great tool for landscape photography. Better suited for one task, less for another.
But other manufacturers had developed many advanced features and it is pity if Ricoh would not take advantage of it. Sometimes I have feeling that Ricoh stubbornly insist on some premises. Sometimes still use Ricoh GR- great, light camera. But why the hell they insist with fixed screen and no EVF (as add on)? Try to use GR low above ground in portrait mode in full sunlight and you will know what I am talking. And GR would be much more useful for landscape/macro/still life with optional EVF. Canon M6, Leica, Sony R1- all proved it is possible. With wide converter it is 1/4 weight of K1 for all day landscape work, but just fixed rear screen make it much less suitable.

Same is valid for K1. Good camera with many plus points but also many fields for improvement. And Ricoh should adress them soon in next K1 incarnation, even as a niche player.

[Roland Karlsson]

I bought my “slightly used” K1 in January and feel I have only scratched the surface of the beautiful images I can create with it so have no hankering for an updated version just at this moment.
I’ll get back to you in six years.

Good for you. And this is relevant for this thread why?

---------- Post added 09-30-22 at 01:52 AM ----------

FF KP would be very interesting. A better designed KP naturally, with a top lcd. The actual KP was clearly a sort of first attempt that needs honing. The K-1 has all the performance I need but it has bulk I don't need. With FF KP i mean a body with the goal of being as compact as possible at the cost of features or performance.

I do value gps highly and from what I've heard no one has achieved good enough smartphone integration.

I do understand that YOU value FF KP highly. But, my point was that it would be a bad move for Pentax. But, fortunately, the risk that they do as you want is infinitesimal.

But yes, smartphone integration sux. Partly because smartphone GPS sux. Smartphones do optimize their GPS usage and use base stations instead. But even being connected to the camera is a problem.

If the camera do not have GPS, you need to buy a GPS unit and attach it. Not an optimal solution.

[Lord Lucan]

Short answer: use of old (adapted), legacy lenses for landscape work.

Adapted? Making a vehicle for old adapted lenses will not be an objective of the K-1iii. It will have a K-mount and I don't think it is possible to adapt much (or anything?) else to that other than M42 screw mount lenses. If you want to use adaptors for any other lenses you need the extra length which a mirrorless body allows for them, so I recommend you to, for example, a Nikon Z7 or Sony A7.

BTW, the second of your three paragraphs in which I am supposed to be quoted was not written by me. I don't know where it came from, no-where in this thread.