K-3

And yup cropping is another reason for high MPs. the Nokia crops for digital zoom. This would be good for wildlife photography for example

Digital zoom is great if it works well, but probably not likely to be implemented on most DSLRs as the image in the viewfinder would be of little use and you'd be forced to shoot with live view to know what you were framing. For a mirrorless cam with an EVF it could work out great if well implemented.

Live view will be a lot more useful if they add a tilt screen

Well, they have put a tilt screen on the new X5 bridge camera, so at least that's encouraging for possible inclusion on the next "K" model.... hopefully!

I've noticed a trend in reviews recently, when assessing new sensors over the 20MP level (but not Full Frame), to draw attention to various consequences in other areas - in particular higher iso noise, and of course higher prices, so its not all gain gain gain. And of course the marketing people push these figures to the front to attract attention - we shouldn't be distracted by this, but focus on the items that would really improve our photography.

piotro plugged earlier for the newer CSC style of camera 'To be honest I can't see much reasons these days to carry that big mirror box', but even the best of the latest crop of EVFs (I'm thinking Fujifilm X-Pro 1?)have their deficiencies - Its never going to be the same as a good 100% optical viewfinder.

Wouldn't it be ironic, if the next APS-C from Pentax had much better AF, but 24MP with correspondingly poor high ISO performance.

(Context: I'm on a bit of a Pentax AF downer at the moment, having spent a week in the Lakes where the K-5/17-70 would randomly refuse - persistently - to get an AF lock on perfectly good, well-lit, high contrast scenes that I would never have imagined would have caused a problem in a million years.)

Hey Chris

My kit 18-55 lens with the k10d did this a few times - a quick and fairly light punch on the zoom ring sorted it - much to my surprise - probably not recommended though

Send me some Pentax engineers. The idea of a quick and possibly not so light punch is very appealing at times.

Increases in sensor technology should allow for better higher ISO noise even with higher pixel counts. The 16mp K-5 sensor had about 3 stops better performance over previous less MP sensors.

this is generally true, especially in the case of your example. But expectedly the K-3 will get the sensor of the Sony SLT Alpha 77. That sensor is noisier than the K-5's one by the mesurements of the DxO Labs.
Sony SLT Alpha 77 is the 46th with value 801 ISO on the list while Pentax K-5 is the 20th with 1162 ISO. The list contains data of 168 cameras.
Here you can check it yourself too:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/%28type%29/usecase_sports
Methinks the K-5N will be better choice for low-light photography because that will have an improved 16MP sensor with the same SAFOX X system that the K-3 will have if the rumors are true.

I would expect the K-3 as anticipated above, if it had the same sensor as the A77, to perform better in terms of ISO/noise.

The reason is that SLT camera lose 30% of their light to the EVF, meaninf they need more amplification to give the same exposures. Therefore, noise will be higher, all other things being equal.

You're right John. I didn't think it. But I'am waiting for DxO Labs' tests before I will switch to K-3.

If the specs are true, because I lean towards more wildlife & sports photography I think I'd take the K5N before the K3, a K5 with better AF is all I need. Hopefully my K5 grip would fit too.
I can't see a 24MP cropped sensor being better noise wise than a K5 and my PC struggles with 16MP images in lightroom, I can't afford a new camera and PC.

Thats interesting. Not a good thing really, certainly another point (along with the direct optical viewfinder)in favour of DSLRs. Is this light loss to do with the 'translucent' mirror that is in these new Sony models (a mirror that doesn't move out of the way but passes the light though instead)?

Yes, if 30% of the light is lost to the viewfinder, then the exposure to the sensor would be reduced. But we need the exposure information to be correct and comparable to other cameras and meters, so it needs boosting up to make the exposure the same as it would be without the light loss.

Of course, all things are not equal, and it so happens that pentax in-camera processing seems especially good. So the advantage lies with the Pentax range in many respects.