Slim to none. At least in the immediate future. Sony would take priority of production and then Nikon would surely have first dibs. That Nikon beat Sony to the punch on 36mp is interesting because Sony could have surely kept that chip to themselves and been the first with the A7r. I get the feeling that Sony is making a LOT more money off of sensor production than actual cameras right now and that isn't such a bad thing.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM, 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.
