It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass.
Cheers, Dave On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. > > What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this > sensor? > > On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: >> >> >> I. >> First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving >> lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of >> the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still >> reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm >> number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that >> was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, >> increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can >> produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 >> MP to 7.7 MP. >> >> In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. >> (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) >> >> >> II. >> With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - >> if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant >> is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by >> a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). >> What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it >> is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density >> (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. >> So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable >> advancement. >> >> >> III. >> As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - >> besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might >> be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in >> the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature >> of the pixels). >> Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution >> sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) >> higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence >> (eventually) cheaper. >> >> But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) >> of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. >> (see I. above). >> >> >> [Nerd ON] >> IV. >> Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, >> while the absolute increase is. >> I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a >> good measure: >> 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). >> Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? >> The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. >> And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be >> ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even >> sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately >> -16.5C to -15.5C. >> So, it obviously depends on the scale! >> >> Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose >> dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I >> should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, >> the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K -> 275 K, >> respectively. >> >> 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are >> considering. >> For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the >> relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in >> Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change >> probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter >> either... >> E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C >> (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to >> 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. >> So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets >> affected by this change. >> >> 3. Stan, with respect to your "home-economy" example. You are right, >> except for those cases, where there is an "offset" of fixed costs. >> E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. >> Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable >> then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is >> that the effective increase in the income that available for things >> other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a >> comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from >> 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). >> >> Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is >> similar to the "fixed-cost" offset described above. >> >> All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just >> blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. >> >> [Nerd OFF] >> >> >> Thu Sep 11 09:45:58 EDT 2014 >> Darren Addy wrote: >> >> I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages. >> It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons. >> I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely >> different era is apples to oranges, in my book. >> >> To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27% increase is >> insignificant except from a marketing standpoint. The new K-S1 is a >> 25% increase in megapixels over the past several years' 16MP models. >> Even ignoring the other technology improvements along the way, I think >> that 25% is a pretty significant increase. I can make is sound smaller >> by terming it a 1.25 "factor" if I want to minimize it. >> >> Feel free to disagree, but that's my opinion. I think that we may just >> be spoiled by seeing the flagship go up 50% from 16MP to 24MP. That's >> partly due to the disruption caused by no (really) new DSLR models >> during the Hoya to Ricoh transition. >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Stanley Halpin >> <stan at stans-photography.info> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy <pixelsmithy at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change >>>> is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing >>>> things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things, >>>> then someone who went from bench pressing 460 lbs from 360 lbs >>>> shouldn't be any prouder of the accomplishment than someone who went >>>> from 60 lbs to 76 lbs. It's just a funny way to make comparisons, >>>> unless you are trying to purposely minimize accomplishment. >>> >>> I.ll leave aside Mark.s point, I don.t know enough to agree or disagree. >> But Darren, your notion of percentages as a bad thing is just wrong. >>> >>> Lets say I earn $100 an hour. Then I get a $100 raise, am now earning >> $200 an hour. >>> You are earning $1000 an hour, and then you also get a $100 raise. So >> you are at $1100 an hour. >>> >>> We both get an added $100 an hour, but my increase was 100%, yours was >> only 10%. Don.t you think that percentages better reflect the perceived >> value in this case? Ask the buyer of a new $20,000 car how important a >> $2000 discount would be. Ask the buyer of a new $100,000 car how >> important a $2000 discount would be. >>> >>> There is a long history of trying to use numbers in various forms to >> represent perceived value of one sort or another. Most systems fall >> apart because our underlying value systems are not linear and cannot be >> fairly represented with a simple linear scale. Percentages do a pretty >> good job capturing some of that underlying non-linearity and I think >> Mark.s usage helps to provide a valid alternative perspective on this >> "breaking news.. Log scales can be another useful tool. >>> >>> stan >> > > -- > Science - Questions we may never find answers for. > Religion - Answers we must never question. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
