Originally posted by Fogel70 I'm not sure Pentax will get much benefit much of a APS-C BSI sensor . . .
Why not? I thought BSI was supposed to lower noise. Admittedly, it helps less the bigger the sensor, but surely Sony didn't release a new sensor
solely because it's BSI.
Originally posted by Fogel70 . . . We have to see if there will be any IQ improvements on the BSI sensor. . .
I can't disagree that the new sensor
might turn out to be a dog, but I suspect that wouldn't work out well for Sony, either. I think they have plenty of incentive to ensure the new sensor performs better than the old one (they aren't Canon, after all).
Originally posted by Fogel70 . . . One big reason for Sony to use BSI is to get improved on sensor AF, and 4K video. . .
How does BSI improve AF? How would it improve 4K video and not HD video or still photos? I would think that AF & 4K video improvements would be due to other sensor design improvements that might happen to coincide with changing to a BSI sensor, but not because of BSI.
Originally posted by Fogel70 . . . We know Pentax is not caring much on video so they might not use 4K, and on sensor AF improvements is something mirrorless camera will benefit from. If Pentax will release a APS-C K-mount camera with a BSI sensor anytime soon, it might be a K-01 replacement that can benefit from the improved AF.
O cold, cruel, heartless Pentax, who has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the wishes of their videographic users! Who has toyed with us by providing insufficient video modes and a shortage of protuberances by which a still camera, designed to take photographs, can clunkily and inconveniently be jury-rigged to do the job of a video camera that has been designed with the ergonomics, lenses, cooling, and data busses to do a proper job! O Pentax, we beseech thee, Pentaxians barely worthy to touch the gear that bears your name, to compromise further your still cameras so that we might misuse them in a most egregious fashion!
OK, I'm being a bit facetious in the last bit, but really -- video cameras and still cameras are two completely different beasts and always have been. They may converge a little more now that we've had a digital revolution, but getting a still camera to be a good video camera (and no, the Canon 5d mk. ii NEVER qualified) is really about as easy as modifying an old Pentax film camera to take motion pictures. People are complaining about the battery life on the K-3ii. What will they say when it gets a 4K capable processor? HD video takes plenty enough juice, and that's probably the reason Pentax isn't supporting it better right now -- if the processor can handle still pictures with judicious speed, upgrading it to handle video just eats battery life. And it's all software (firmware) nowadays -- there are no more dedicated ASIC processors, especially low power ones, for encoding. It's just too complicated, and the standards change too quickly. Besides, about the only camera company that makes lenses good enough for video (they have different requirements) is Canon. (Although apparently you can get an adapter to fit old TV studio camera lenses on the Pentax Q [and I have to specify now because there are about 3 or 4 different "q" cameras on the market at the moment]).
The built-in video mode is great for if you're somewhere with your still camera and want a casual video of something that's happening. It would be irritating to carry a camcorder for a "what if" like that, and yes, the gear you have is probably better than something small and dedicated (not to mention expensive). But everyone seems to want production video features on their still camera. Considering what they won't be able to do, regardless of Pentax's wishes (or more probably its users'), I have to wonder why.