24mp APS-C?

that is a direct quote- you are mistaken

Ah, yes, I've found the quote now. It would have been simpler just to make the quote by copying and pasting it, you're making us work to find it!

Apologies if I've read you wrong john but I think you're missing the point here. We now live in a full on consumerist capitalist world. Things don't expand they just keep going round in circles. Boom follows bust and we must keep consuming what the manufacturers deign to give us or the world will stop spinning. I know in my heart of hearts that a 24mp APS-C thingy will not make me a better photographer than I was yesterday, but there's always hope for tomorrow and it may for a brief moment fulfill that unidentifiable inner longing. Marketing sees to that.

giofi and smeggypants you make some good points. You know, I'd love to see Ricoh say to Pentax here's the deal, we'll make what the majority of people think they want and rake in the dollars, while you go off and make what the people really need and keep the minority happy. Alas I think that improved dynamic range, a full frame sensor, perfect auto-focusing and a complete offering of waterproof lenses will not expand the fettered imagination and lack of ability of a lost cause such as I.

I'm not sure if there's any contradiction, but the point I was making was that for a single type of consumer there's a law of diminishing returns and a saturation point. Beyond that, new products are needed that will move the saturation point back. It just gets more difficult for manufacturers to achieve this with a fixed clientele. So they have to expand the user base as well.

When we bought ther SP1000 it was camera club members/enthusiasts who were the main market and many likely had darkrooms as well. That's a specialised market. Camera manufacturers have managed to expand that user base quite extensiively since then.

A large 'part' of the reason I bought a K5 when I did was that I was worried that the upcoming replacement would have had the 24mp Sony sensor which I don't feel would suit my needs/ wants

If it does come along then so be it, it may surprise a few people

Here is the pointer to Toshiba sensor in the 5200 (not3200):
link
Andy

Yes, the K-3, or even the K-1 if your K-5s last that long - I don't believe your goign to buy a K-5IIs in 3 years time when that much better specced K-3 is available

They certainly do and there's plenty of Oppurtunity for pentax to do this.

Remember that Nokia were the World's largest mobile company but now others have surpassed them. Logically it's also possible that either Canon or Mikon could suffer the same path as Nokia and get overtaken by another company. That company could be Pentax.

But Pentax have to get some marketing. There current lack of it is, IMO, a big reason why there market share is as low as it is.

I still have my first serious camera, a Yashica FX2, built like a tank and I'm sure it would still work if I cared to put a film in it. However, as I've just bought a K5 (Mk1)at a very good price, that's not going to happen.
Buying the previous model does have economic advantages.

Yes john, I thinks we've got the same perspective but I believe we're on the losing side of a zero sum game here. Back in the day I reckon fewer people owned 35mm cameras than now own DSLR's, but there's a difference between owning and using. I'd bet most of the DSLR's in the world today sit in the back of a cupboard depreciating while waiting for the next big positive life event and most of these devices will function primarily as fashion accessories or symbols of status. I don't think the specialist market has expanded that much otherwise I'd see people out and about everyday taking pictures with DSLR's. At a guess I'd say most people on this site migrated from old skool film to the new skool digital.

The owner base has grown by providing a product that is attractive, versatile, easy to use and can be sold at the lowest actual cost to the uninformed masses (more pixels for the same money must mean it's got to be better). While the minority specialists who would prefer a technically more refined product (K52s) will pay a premium to get that extra quality. These specialist cameras no matter how much they are marketed will only ever sell in small numbers because, cheaper devices are readily available for the less discerning on whats left of the High St. I reckon DSLR development and sales will decline as camera phones 'the new product' continue to improve. If you were Ricoh where would you spend your product development budget?

I've hung onto my Z-1s and M645 as they are built to withstand a lifetime of abuse - more staying power than the current crop of DSLRs - however sourcing film is getting harder and harder - Kodak's demise has left me looking forlornly at my 4 5-packs of EliteChrome EC in my fridge - it's a super film but I know that once that is all used up, I can't get any more, the only options remaining are Provia or Velvia 100 in that range....

Meanwhile, My K-5, K20D and D3 are serving me well, all in different ways but all I now wish for is an affordably lens longer than 300mm.....

When we refer to 'IQ improvements', a lot of the emphasis, both on what people desire and what might be delivered, is on high ISO / low light performance (ie reduced noise at ever higher iso settings), which is obviously important to people.

As a photographer who only infrequently makes use of high iso settings (400 +), I am curious to know whether upgrading to a newer model (which boasts of improved high iso performance) would also offer any additional IQ at the low settings - I mean, would the sensor give more IQ to images shot at ISO 100 with the camera on a tripod?

I don't see sensor performance under these conditions referred to in discussions (or advertising) about new models.

Absolutely - that is the main reason why I upgraded from a K200D to a K30. My impression is that the K30 does provide improved performance at low ISOs too - but I haven't done any comparitive testing to verify that.

Compared with the K200D, the things I love about the K30 are indeed its low light performance. I'm quite keen on focus peaking with manual focus lenses. I've also spent quite a bit of time micro-adjusting the focus for a couple of old zooms (F 35-70mm and a FA 100-300) but have yet to discover whether that will result in a practical improvement in their performance.

Downsides? I do slightly miss the top LCD screen - but don't miss the battery grip anything like as much as I thought I might.

Andrew

You have hit one of my pet peeves.

My K20D produces better low ISO images than the subsequent couple of models I have used (K-x, K-7). I haven't used the K-5 or K-30 but there is absolutely no indication that this has changed.

In fact base ISO is creeping up. Instead, give me a base ISO 50 camera with zero noise. Yeah, it can go to IS1600 if you like, but leave the stratospheric numbers to the marketing dept.

Having upgraded from a K20D to a K-5, I must say I'm most impressed with the lower noise at ISO100 ( higher dynamic range ) from the K-5 which allows much more leeway when boosting shadows and midtones during editing

If you don't do much editing and boosting then the differences at ISO100 won't be so apparent



ISO 1600 on the K-5 is like ISO400 on the K20D.


This is ISO12800 on the K-5





I love the ability to take decent high ISO shots. It allows shutter speeds and apertures you'd never get away with on earlier models.

I want even higher ISO performance.