[Silverstierna]

Hi,

Im looking to upgrade to possibly a K3. Am i missing something or did the sensor change in the K3 recently?

B&H lists the K3 as 23.35 MP and the prestige model as 24.35 MP

So did Pentax put a new sensor in and is the older one better or worse than the new one?

or am i just tired and confused ???

Thanks

Andreas

---

Last edited by Silverstierna; 02-22-2015 at 01:37 AM. Reason: Added image

[Steve.Ledger]

Effective pixels: 23.35 MP
Total pixels: 24.71 MP

► PENTAX - K-3

[Silverstierna]

Prestige model:

Actual: 24.71 Megapixel
Effective: 24.35 Megapixel

K3 model

Actual: 24.71 Megapixel
Effective: 23.35 Megapixel

So it is a missprint in the specs for each camera?

[transam879]

So it is a missprint in the specs for each camera?

Must be a misprint since on the Ricoh site the specifications are the same between the two.

[Silverstierna]

Yeah, probably.

I was thinking that it could be possible that they have changed some parts in the camera compared to when it was released to get the price down?
I have seen the two different numbers used a few times now. and since it has happened on more than one site I wonder if the effective MP was 24.35 when the camera was released and now it is 23.35 due to components change? or something like it?

Here is an example of the 24.4 number used for K3: (Amazon)

Max Resolution 24.4 megapixels

and from the announcement...

Pentax has announced a new APS-C sized digital SLR camera with a 24.3MP CMOS sensor. The Pentax K-3 Digital SLR Camera takes its place atop the Pentax DSLR lineup with its high-resolution sensor, in-camera image stabilization

According the the Ricoh site this should then be either 24.71 or 23.35 ?

I'm probably reading to much in to this but to me it looks like parts were charged at some point to get the price of the body down and or profits up?

[reeftool]

It looks to me like they are just using the actual MP in one ad and the effective MP in the other as a way to con you into thinking that there is a real reason to buy the more expensive "Prestige " edition other than cosmetic differences.

[Silverstierna]

Well the actual MP is 24.71 not 24.35 or 24.4. So if the actual MP is 24.71 and the effective is 23.35 where did the 24.35-24.4 number come from that many sites and press releases refer to?

---------- Post added 02-22-15 at 08:27 AM ----------

I guess not a bid deal regardless. It's just the conspiracy theorists in me that thinks they have put cheaper parts in to get higher profits...

[Prakticant]

Check K-3 picture size in Exif and multiply 4000*6016 which makes no more no less than 24.06MP
Than we could add some 'border' pixels for the sake of SR, but the picture taken is 24.06 I believe.

-----

Well the actual MP is 24.71 not 24.35 or 24.4. So if the actual MP is 24.71 and the effective is 23.35 where did the 24.35-24.4 number come from that many sites and press releases refer to?

[monochrome]

I guess not a bid deal regardless. It's just the conspiracy theorists in me that thinks they have put cheaper parts in to get higher profits...

Do you know for a fact that Sony makes different sensors, one 'cheaper' than the other?

Do you know for a fact (should Sony actually have changed their sensor or offered a different one - and should Pentax have changed the sensor) that the alleged new sensor isn't BETTER and MORE EXPENSIVE (and therefore LESS profitable) than the other sensor?

If you don't know these things then this is an unfounded thought and an irresponsible post.

[fuent104]

Do you know for a fact that Sony makes different sensors, one 'cheaper' than the other?

Do you know for a fact (should Sony actually have changed their sensor or offered a different one - and should Pentax have changed the sensor) that the alleged new sensor isn't BETTER and MORE EXPENSIVE (and therefore LESS profitable) than the other sensor?

If you don't know these things then this is an unfounded thought and an irresponsible post.

No, it is not. The poster clearly provided data and asked questions that supported the conclusion. Next, he (or she) actually stated "the conspiracy theorist in me thinks... " That is a disclaimer, which acknowledges that the opinion is just an opinion, not to be taken as fact. The is nothing irresponsible about posting opinions, especially when providing such disclaimers.

[lmd91343]

Do you know for a fact that Sony makes different sensors, one 'cheaper' than the other?

Do you know for a fact (should Sony actually have changed their sensor or offered a different one - and should Pentax have changed the sensor) that the alleged new sensor isn't BETTER and MORE EXPENSIVE (and therefore LESS profitable) than the other sensor?

If you don't know these things then this is an unfounded thought and an irresponsible post.

The OP asked a question based on hard data he had collected and shared. He then added a touch of self deprecating humor (twice!). It is a perfectly valid question.

Let's answer the question, if we know the answer.

[Silverstierna]

Do you know for a fact that Sony makes different sensors, one 'cheaper' than the other?

Do you know for a fact (should Sony actually have changed their sensor or offered a different one - and should Pentax have changed the sensor) that the alleged new sensor isn't BETTER and MORE EXPENSIVE (and therefore LESS profitable) than the other sensor?

If you don't know these things then this is an unfounded thought and an irresponsible post.

Well.... I think the other two gave you a pretty good answer....
However, Since you have no information pertaining to my actual question in your answer(?)
I will point out that you should probably check your facts before you attack me personally! To quote myself "is the older one better or worse than the new one?"

is it BETTER or WORSE.... So to sum it up, all you provided was an unfounded thought and an irresponsible answer.

If there has been a change and the (wait, just calling my lawyer to form sentence correctly) alleged (by me) sensor and/or parts and/or other components (not stating that there has been a change but if) is/are not the same. Would it be better to purchase an used older body or a brand new, newer body?

Although now i realize that instead of calling the lawyer i could have ordered a K3 instead for the same amount of money, with or without the new (alleged) sensor.... hindsight is 20/20 i guess

[stevebrot]

So did Pentax put a new sensor in and is the older one better or worse than the new one?

or am i just tired and confused ???

No, the sensor is the same, though you may well be both tired and confused. I often am. The matter of the B&H description as well as the spec at the Ricoh USA site has come up before several times since the camera's launch. Where they got the 23.35 Megapixel effective number is a mystery.

The true pixel count for the finished image is 24.06. Total count for sensor is 24.71 with the effective count (those involved in image processing) being 24.35. I suspect that someone in marketing had a slip of the finger and typed 23.35 rather than 24.35 at some point and the rest is history.

See Ricoh Japan for the official spec's

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-3/spec/


Steve

[monochrome]

Your question was valid - right up to the point of ascribing a profit motive to allegedly cheapening the product without informing the buyer. Hiding behind a disclaimer, then directly making a blasphemous statement is a classic FUD tactic. It was not necessary to further illuminate the question and can only be characterized as inflammatory.

If you asked an honest question with no intent to spread false harm the attempt at irony was at best ill-founded.

[stevebrot]

Well the actual MP is 24.71 not 24.35 or 24.4. So if the actual MP is 24.71 and the effective is 23.35 where did the 24.35-24.4 number come from that many sites and press releases refer to?

Effective is the number of pixels engaged in image processing. They exist just outside the image frame and are used to compute the values for the near boundary pixels.


Steve