[Nicolas06]

So does Sony.

Sony is worse overall. They have some nice modern prime, not all that expensive so that better on some aspect than Pentax.

For all the rest, they have only the extremely expensive Sony options, that doesn't leverage much the small camera size. At least in Pentax you still have the sigma/tamron 70-300, 150-500, 24-70, 28-75, 70-200 that are interresting alternatives. In Sony, that using the converter and then what the point?

[biz-engineer]

The A7 in particular here is in the 999€-1200€ range depending of the moment, and there some offers from discounters at 859€. That extremely tempting, quite honestly.

You have to resist to temptation, you know you don't need more than 7 Mpixels.

[lithedreamer]

you can't set up multiple flashes and control them from the camera - well that's what a Nikon owning pro friend of mine tells me.

Indeed.

That's why I've been unable to shoot on-site portraiture monthly, and a wedding with flash in December, along with a graduation and a diversity conference last year. All were totally impossible because my multiple flashes realised I was using a Pentax and refused to work.

Good one.

[Nicolas06]

You have to resist to temptation, you know you don't need more than 7 Mpixels.

Yes that my weakness, 24MP cropped to APSC is 10-11 MP and I weak enough to think that in some case that may not be enough for a 85mm in term of reach on that body... But you are right as 7MP is enough, that should do it !

[tabl10s]

The two cameras that we need right now are :

1)APSC@30MP.

2)FF@20-21mp for sports w/11-14 FPS.

The K-1 would retain its position as company leader and could also be viewed as a mini DSLR Medium Format.

[beachgardener]

The two cameras that we need right now are : 1)APSC@30MP. 2)FF@20-21mp for sports w/11-14 FPS. The K-1 would retain its position as company leader and could also be viewed as a mini DSLR Medium Format.

Yes I agree that is how I see it too, and fast buffer clear times is very important

[zapp]

The two cameras that we need right now are :

1)APSC@30MP.

2)FF@20-21mp for sports w/11-14 FPS.

The K-1 would retain its position as company leader and could also be viewed as a mini DSLR Medium Format.

Replace "we need" with "I want" - still different from I am willing to pay for. Pixel pitch of 1) will be tiny, price for 2) can be grasped from CanonNikon.

[monochrome]

The two cameras that we need right now are :

1)APSC@30MP.

2)FF@20-21mp for sports w/11-14 FPS.

What lenses would you use with #1?
What lenses would you use with #2?

[Jeff Lopez]

We all should retool the question to "when do we get a FF mirrorless that would have an effective high iso like around 51600 and up?"

[MJKoski]

K-1 would be mini MF after they manage to implement automated PS panorama using full sensor movements. And then push one file out of it to the memory card as a bonus. Hardware may limit it though - it would require 16 exposures in a row.

[Nicolas06]

The two cameras that we need right now are :

1)APSC@30MP.

2)FF@20-21mp for sports w/11-14 FPS.

The K-1 would retain its position as company leader and could also be viewed as a mini DSLR Medium Format.

Much more interrested personnally in things that would perform well (AF), keep small and light (more KP or smaller than K1)... So for me an FF sensor with KP body, an EVF instead of OVF and obviously an easy route for 10+FPS as there no mirror etc. But that would require some real in sensor PDAF... That's what I'd want...

Not interrested in 11-14FPS when anyway some camera al

ready do 30FPS (GH5) and my K3 8.5FPS is just fine and anyway the most important aspect AF is not fully solved yet and is much more important for actual result that higher burst rate.

The main interrest for me as 36MP for FF is that because the sensor is great you can crop to APSC so a given lens/zoom is giving lot of creative opportunities, even more so with EVF... But 30MP on APSC? That look like it would require expensive/big lenses to be that sharp and the high iso performance may get hurt.

Just to say we don't have all the same priorities... And honestly I'd prefer we have things that are more different than just make D5 clone...

[biz-engineer]

1)APSC@30MP. 2)FF@20-21mp for sports w/11-14 FPS.

Spot on. And not quite.

Much more interrested personnally in things that would perform well (AF), keep small and light (more KP or smaller than K1)... So for me an FF sensor with KP body, an EVF instead of OVF and obviously an easy route for 10+FPS as there no mirror etc. But that would require some real in sensor PDAF... That's what I'd want... Not interrested in 11-14FPS when anyway some camera al ready do 30FPS (GH5) and my K3 8.5FPS is just fine and anyway the most important aspect AF is not fully solved yet and is much more important for actual result that higher burst rate. The main interrest for me as 36MP for FF is that because the sensor is great you can crop to APSC so a given lens/zoom is giving lot of creative opportunities, even more so with EVF... But 30MP on APSC? That look like it would require expensive/big lenses to be that sharp and the high iso performance may get hurt. Just to say we don't have all the same priorities... And honestly I'd prefer we have things that are more different than just make D5 clone...

The problem with cameras is that the camera that do it all best cannot exist.
We could say: "Full frame advantage is high iso, therefore, it's best for sports because sports stress on shutter speed, hence stress on iso. A Full Frame camera should have 21Mp and fast AF and fast burst rate".
Other people will reply: "No, full frame is better for landscape because it offer more dynamic range".
Other people will reply: "Well, apsc with fast AF and fast FPS is better because smaller lenses offer more reach for birding/wildlife".
While others will say: "EVF is a must because it enable size reduced cameras and discretion for street and people shooting".
And others will say: "Small ILC camera for sport/wildlife shooting isn't so great because a good old style DSLR with comfortable grip is more ergonomic for using long lenses."

The problem is , Canon is almost the only company having enough market share to offer something that suit better each kind of people.
Pentax have a minority market share, it is not realistic to expect Ricoh to cover all segments, there will obviously be uncovered user preferences.

[tabl10s]

Spot on. And not quite.



The problem with cameras is that the camera that do it all best cannot exist.
We could say: "Full frame advantage is high iso, therefore, it's best for sports because sports stress on shutter speed, hence stress on iso. A Full Frame camera should have 21Mp and fast AF and fast burst rate".
Other people will reply: "No, full frame is better for landscape because it offer more dynamic range".
Other people will reply: "Well, apsc with fast AF and fast FPS is better because smaller lenses offer more reach for birding/wildlife".
While others will say: "EVF is a must because it enable size reduced cameras and discretion for street and people shooting".
And others will say: "Small ILC camera for sport/wildlife shooting isn't so great because a good old style DSLR with comfortable grip is more ergonomic for using long lenses."

The problem is , Canon is almost the only company having enough market share to offer something that suit better each kind of people.
Pentax have a minority market share, it is not realistic to expect Ricoh to cover all segments, there will obviously be uncovered user preferences.

If that's the case, which of the two would you gofor?

[biz-engineer]

If that's the case, which of the two would you gofor?

I already have a complete set of DFA lenses. If there would be a K1 version with 24Mp 8-10 FPS with better AF, I'd go for it. Also, practically, FPS higher than 8 is luxury, true 8 FPS is already fast enough to capture fast moments.
I'd only go for apsc for the size, i.e mirroless + 3 primes. For landscape (hiking) and site seeing, light weight / compact is important. I don't see rugged apsc DSLR being particularly small in comparison to their full frame counterparts. IMO, slow apsc DSLR is getting less and less appealing. Fast FPS APSc would work with a faster lens such as 300 f2.8 .

[Nicolas06]

I already have a complete set of DFA lenses. If there would be a K1 version with 24Mp 8-10 FPS with better AF, I'd go for it. Also, practically, FPS higher than 8 is luxury, true 8 FPS is already fast enough to capture fast moments.
I'd only go for apsc for the size, i.e mirroless + 3 primes. For landscape (hiking) and site seeing, light weight / compact is important. I don't see rugged apsc DSLR being particularly small in comparison to their full frame counterparts. IMO, slow apsc DSLR is getting less and less appealing. Fast FPS APSc would work with a faster lens such as 300 f2.8 .

I would even add that in the mid-long term there no reason to have any APSC body anymore. You can simply always put an FF sensor anywhere as the price is low and get the optics that match your requirement for speed/weight/size/price.

Even on FF big/heavy is a design choice, not a fatality. I'd prefer that we all get a great/nice sensor and that we adapt the optics, that restrict the possibilities of the camera for pure market segmentation purposes.