On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:48:46PM -0800, Tim Bray wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:55 AM, paul stenquist <[email protected]> > wrote: > > These are excellent, but k7 is rather good at relatively high ISO as well. > > Granted. I think the issue isn't the absolute performance, it's that > it really isn't much of a step up from the K20, and that the K-x is a > step from it. So for a lot of us who are sitting in K10/20-land, it's > sensible to sit tight and let Pentax have another go at it before we > upgrade. > > -T
The question is whether the K-x performance comes from the larger pixel sites or in post-exposure processing. I do not expect pentax to "downgrade" the K-7 sensor to the same pixel count as the K-x; to do so would either mean giving up the frame rate of the K-7 or using a different sensor (which would add expense). "Downgrade" is in quotes because for almost all purposes there are more than enough pixels in a K-x. But, again, for almost all purposes the K-7 does well enough at high ISO, and for almost all purposes the high frame rate of the K-7 is unnecessary (although it does also add to the responsiveness of the camera in single shot mode). But Pentax chose to satisfy frame rate and pixel count concerns in the K-7; they won't back away from that in a K-7x. I would expect to see any improvements in in-camera processing make it into such a model. But I'm not sure we'll see any such thing in the next year or two - what other changes would there be to warrant a new model? Just new firmware? I can think of a whole raft of things Pentax *could* do (improved AF algorthms; more AF sensors to go with that; wireless connectivity; &c.) But I don't *expect* to see any of them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
