Originally posted by cometguy I think that this could come full-circle, as you say in your first sentence: Many more people are doing photography today because of their smartphone cameras than were doing photography 15 years ago, and many more people are taking lots more photos than they were 15 years ago, because of good smartphone cameras that have improved in their capabilities. With so many millions of people taking more photos today with smartphones than they were taking 15 years ago, there's a good chance that a small percentage of the younger people will continue to want to move up to better cameras (whether DSLR or mirrorless) in the coming years. Ironically, smartphones could keep some camera companies in business if even a small percentage of these mirrorless-smartphone photographers decide to try DSLRs. And some of these will get interested enough to buy FF cameras after getting into interchangeable-lens cameras, as time goes by.
As for what Pentax could do in a new FF camera, I think that there are really two key obvious ways to improve: more pixels (i.e., smaller pixels) and better buffering speeds. As explained in one analysis, it would take a 156-Mpx sensor to equal the resolution of the best film in a 35-mm camera (
I STILL SHOOT FILM - The Real Resolution of Film vs. Digital). But more pixels means you need faster processors and better buffering. It's hard to imagine any two things that would be more important to improve upon in any FF camera such as the K-1 II (which already is a fabulous camera). (Yes, you could say "improve the video capabilities", but I argue that the video in current Pentax cameras is plenty fine for shooting YouTube videos and pretty much anything most people would want to do; if you want more than Pentax can do with video, buy a dedicated Sony video camera.)
Yes, I agree. I have always taken the position, if wanting serious video-use, buy a good video camera. And I think you are right in the shortcomings of smartphone photography might stimulate further interest in superior photography. It has really always been sort of that way right along over the decades. Interest in going beyond the cheapest, simplest, most convenient technology available, arising out of dissatisfaction, has led a fraction of participants into doing so. Getting more advanced equipment has long been a niche interest in itself. Later, came the combination of automation combined with advanced equipment, so one did not need to learn a whole lot to get some benefit of control over factors like focal length, etc. along with "scene" modes, to obtain superior results.
I do believe in the potential resolution of film. I have used a high-res film scanner, and was amazed at the file sizes. But I found there are other aspects at work also for the resultant image quality, like grain, etc. which when comparing images in blowups, etc. will obscure that resolution more in the case of film. It was with sensors of around 10mp or so when images from a DSLR began to satisfy me as much as good film shots. My 35mm film bodies have been my 'full-frame" alternative to my fine APS-C DSLR cameras. But they are not near as efficient in getting my results, seeing what I have quickly, and able to do multiple takes from different angles, different exposures, etc so the end results often turn out to be more satisfying.