Pentax FF: Less MP more Image Quality ?
Posted 10/04/2014 - 01:42
Link
gwing wrote:
I predict we will get better and better DR from smaller and smaller sensors as time goes by. Then one day there will come a breakthrough when someone produces a sensor that has a fast enough read time and low enough scan induced noise to do multiple fast scans per shot giving effectively infinite DR.
For example you set your camera to take a 30 second exposure at wide aperture and in bright light. The camera scans the sensor after 1/1000 second, then 2/1000 second, then 4/1000 then 8/1000 etc. until the 30 seconds is reached or all pixels are fully overexposed. The light level for each pixel can then be calculated based on how long it takes to blow rather than current methods of measuring how many photons land on that pixel during the exposure. As it would be a single exposure there would be no mirror/shutter flap between each scan unlike current HDR methods.
That's my dream anyway
That'll work well for anything moving
judderman62 wrote:
I would rather more focus on increasing, if technically possible, dynamic range. I certainly have zero interest, at this time or foreseeable future, for anything higher than 16 MP and would be very happy with 14 or even 12. Indeed I actively don't want more than 16 thanks all the same. for one thing RAW file sizes from such MP sensors fill my, already bursting at the seams, mac's drive way too quickly.
So yes smeggy your proposition meets with my approval
I'd love to see the camera industry aim for, even if it's impossible right now, to et a sensor that has the same dynamic range as the human eye - imagine my urbex shots in a dark factory / mill and the bright scene outside without one being blown out, or the other a murky shadow...and without needing to utilise HDR.
That is my dream for the future of photography.
It will come. But why limit your DR requirements to that of the human eye?I would rather more focus on increasing, if technically possible, dynamic range. I certainly have zero interest, at this time or foreseeable future, for anything higher than 16 MP and would be very happy with 14 or even 12. Indeed I actively don't want more than 16 thanks all the same. for one thing RAW file sizes from such MP sensors fill my, already bursting at the seams, mac's drive way too quickly.
So yes smeggy your proposition meets with my approval
I'd love to see the camera industry aim for, even if it's impossible right now, to et a sensor that has the same dynamic range as the human eye - imagine my urbex shots in a dark factory / mill and the bright scene outside without one being blown out, or the other a murky shadow...and without needing to utilise HDR.
That is my dream for the future of photography.
I predict we will get better and better DR from smaller and smaller sensors as time goes by. Then one day there will come a breakthrough when someone produces a sensor that has a fast enough read time and low enough scan induced noise to do multiple fast scans per shot giving effectively infinite DR.
For example you set your camera to take a 30 second exposure at wide aperture and in bright light. The camera scans the sensor after 1/1000 second, then 2/1000 second, then 4/1000 then 8/1000 etc. until the 30 seconds is reached or all pixels are fully overexposed. The light level for each pixel can then be calculated based on how long it takes to blow rather than current methods of measuring how many photons land on that pixel during the exposure. As it would be a single exposure there would be no mirror/shutter flap between each scan unlike current HDR methods.
That's my dream anyway
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 10/04/2014 - 02:01
Link
richandfleur wrote:
True, but people compress dynamic ranges by raising shadows and lowering highlights. HDR is an extreme example of this. gwing wrote:
why limit your DR requirements to that of the human eye?
Because you won't be able to see any more than that anyway...why limit your DR requirements to that of the human eye?
By having a super dynamic range imaging the detail you can bring up from the shadows when required and have it relatively noise free
Quote:
Super high ISO values are a laugh, but typically they mean better usable ISO ranges at the bottom end. Several companies are pushing the 250,000 and 400,000 ISO range now, so hopefully they've good at higher bottom end ISO ranges. If Pentax uses Sony sensors then hopefully there is some flow down there.
The higher the ISO performance the better range of aperture and shutter values you have at your disposal in lower light is they are much more than just a gimmick.Super high ISO values are a laugh, but typically they mean better usable ISO ranges at the bottom end. Several companies are pushing the 250,000 and 400,000 ISO range now, so hopefully they've good at higher bottom end ISO ranges. If Pentax uses Sony sensors then hopefully there is some flow down there.
Higher ISO is simply achieved by amplification of the signal from the sensor, analog up to a point say 1600 and digital from thereon.
So the higher ISO performances requires a much lower noise base ISO signal to start with and thus much better dynamic range at base ISO. IOW ISO performance and DR are generally and roughly linearly proportional.
Even those who don't shoot at really high ISOs therefore should support them.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 10/04/2014 - 02:14
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
I struggle to visualise how this would look.gwing wrote:
I predict we will get better and better DR from smaller and smaller sensors as time goes by. Then one day there will come a breakthrough when someone produces a sensor that has a fast enough read time and low enough scan induced noise to do multiple fast scans per shot giving effectively infinite DR.
For example you set your camera to take a 30 second exposure at wide aperture and in bright light. The camera scans the sensor after 1/1000 second, then 2/1000 second, then 4/1000 then 8/1000 etc. until the 30 seconds is reached or all pixels are fully overexposed. The light level for each pixel can then be calculated based on how long it takes to blow rather than current methods of measuring how many photons land on that pixel during the exposure. As it would be a single exposure there would be no mirror/shutter flap between each scan unlike current HDR methods.
That's my dream anyway
That'll work well for anything moving judderman62 wrote:
I would rather more focus on increasing, if technically possible, dynamic range. I certainly have zero interest, at this time or foreseeable future, for anything higher than 16 MP and would be very happy with 14 or even 12. Indeed I actively don't want more than 16 thanks all the same. for one thing RAW file sizes from such MP sensors fill my, already bursting at the seams, mac's drive way too quickly.
So yes smeggy your proposition meets with my approval
I'd love to see the camera industry aim for, even if it's impossible right now, to et a sensor that has the same dynamic range as the human eye - imagine my urbex shots in a dark factory / mill and the bright scene outside without one being blown out, or the other a murky shadow...and without needing to utilise HDR.
That is my dream for the future of photography.
It will come. But why limit your DR requirements to that of the human eye?I would rather more focus on increasing, if technically possible, dynamic range. I certainly have zero interest, at this time or foreseeable future, for anything higher than 16 MP and would be very happy with 14 or even 12. Indeed I actively don't want more than 16 thanks all the same. for one thing RAW file sizes from such MP sensors fill my, already bursting at the seams, mac's drive way too quickly.
So yes smeggy your proposition meets with my approval
I'd love to see the camera industry aim for, even if it's impossible right now, to et a sensor that has the same dynamic range as the human eye - imagine my urbex shots in a dark factory / mill and the bright scene outside without one being blown out, or the other a murky shadow...and without needing to utilise HDR.
That is my dream for the future of photography.
I predict we will get better and better DR from smaller and smaller sensors as time goes by. Then one day there will come a breakthrough when someone produces a sensor that has a fast enough read time and low enough scan induced noise to do multiple fast scans per shot giving effectively infinite DR.
For example you set your camera to take a 30 second exposure at wide aperture and in bright light. The camera scans the sensor after 1/1000 second, then 2/1000 second, then 4/1000 then 8/1000 etc. until the 30 seconds is reached or all pixels are fully overexposed. The light level for each pixel can then be calculated based on how long it takes to blow rather than current methods of measuring how many photons land on that pixel during the exposure. As it would be a single exposure there would be no mirror/shutter flap between each scan unlike current HDR methods.
That's my dream anyway
For a conventional 30sec photo anything moving will be blurred evenly across the distance it moves in 30 seconds. For the exposure method I suggest the darkest areas of our subject would be blurred as for a normal exposure of the same time, all other areas will be blurred progressively less the brighter they are. Whether that would look better or worse I don't know.
Posted 10/04/2014 - 02:19
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
Even those who don't shoot at really high ISOs therefore should support them.
Just to clarify, if you look closely you'll see I'm not disagreeing with this.Even those who don't shoot at really high ISOs therefore should support them.
Hopefully the extremely high values quoted mean an increase in usable ISO values at the lower end of the range, eg 100 - 50,000 or so.
Posted 10/04/2014 - 02:56
Link
richandfleur wrote:
Hopefully the extremely high values quoted mean an increase in usable ISO values at the lower end of the range, eg 100 - 50,000 or so.
yes I noticed. Just expanding on it
Smeggypants wrote:
Even those who don't shoot at really high ISOs therefore should support them.
Just to clarify, if you look closely you'll see I'm not disagreeing with this.Even those who don't shoot at really high ISOs therefore should support them.
Hopefully the extremely high values quoted mean an increase in usable ISO values at the lower end of the range, eg 100 - 50,000 or so.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 10/04/2014 - 03:01
Link
gwing wrote:
I struggle to visualise how this would look.Smeggypants wrote:
I predict we will get better and better DR from smaller and smaller sensors as time goes by. Then one day there will come a breakthrough when someone produces a sensor that has a fast enough read time and low enough scan induced noise to do multiple fast scans per shot giving effectively infinite DR.
For example you set your camera to take a 30 second exposure at wide aperture and in bright light. The camera scans the sensor after 1/1000 second, then 2/1000 second, then 4/1000 then 8/1000 etc. until the 30 seconds is reached or all pixels are fully overexposed. The light level for each pixel can then be calculated based on how long it takes to blow rather than current methods of measuring how many photons land on that pixel during the exposure. As it would be a single exposure there would be no mirror/shutter flap between each scan unlike current HDR methods.
That's my dream anyway
That'll work well for anything moving gwing wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="judderman62"]I would rather more focus on increasing, if technically possible, dynamic range. I certainly have zero interest, at this time or foreseeable future, for anything higher than 16 MP and would be very happy with 14 or even 12. Indeed I actively don't want more than 16 thanks all the same. for one thing RAW file sizes from such MP sensors fill my, already bursting at the seams, mac's drive way too quickly.
So yes smeggy your proposition meets with my approval
I'd love to see the camera industry aim for, even if it's impossible right now, to et a sensor that has the same dynamic range as the human eye - imagine my urbex shots in a dark factory / mill and the bright scene outside without one being blown out, or the other a murky shadow...and without needing to utilise HDR.
That is my dream for the future of photography.
It will come. But why limit your DR requirements to that of the human eye?[quote:3496ace15f="judderman62"]I would rather more focus on increasing, if technically possible, dynamic range. I certainly have zero interest, at this time or foreseeable future, for anything higher than 16 MP and would be very happy with 14 or even 12. Indeed I actively don't want more than 16 thanks all the same. for one thing RAW file sizes from such MP sensors fill my, already bursting at the seams, mac's drive way too quickly.
So yes smeggy your proposition meets with my approval
I'd love to see the camera industry aim for, even if it's impossible right now, to et a sensor that has the same dynamic range as the human eye - imagine my urbex shots in a dark factory / mill and the bright scene outside without one being blown out, or the other a murky shadow...and without needing to utilise HDR.
That is my dream for the future of photography.
I predict we will get better and better DR from smaller and smaller sensors as time goes by. Then one day there will come a breakthrough when someone produces a sensor that has a fast enough read time and low enough scan induced noise to do multiple fast scans per shot giving effectively infinite DR.
For example you set your camera to take a 30 second exposure at wide aperture and in bright light. The camera scans the sensor after 1/1000 second, then 2/1000 second, then 4/1000 then 8/1000 etc. until the 30 seconds is reached or all pixels are fully overexposed. The light level for each pixel can then be calculated based on how long it takes to blow rather than current methods of measuring how many photons land on that pixel during the exposure. As it would be a single exposure there would be no mirror/shutter flap between each scan unlike current HDR methods.
That's my dream anyway
For a conventional 30sec photo anything moving will be blurred evenly across the distance it moves in 30 seconds. For the exposure method I suggest the darkest areas of our subject would be blurred as for a normal exposure of the same time, all other areas will be blurred progressively less the brighter they are. Whether that would look better or worse I don't know.[/quote]Actually the way it could cope with moving elements of the scene reminds me of a nice mode my little Sony TX-5 has called "hand held twilight"
What it does is take SIX images in quick successsion and combines them. it's not a HDR effect, but simply takes 6 images with the same exposure and adds them up to reduce noise. It's kind of like having pixels 6 times bigger.
The way it copes with moving stuff is to cleverly not add the pixels together where movement is detected above normal camera shake.
Your suggestion could use the same type of processing to cope with moving scenes. After all it uses an "electronic shutter" (scan).
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 10/04/2014 - 03:27
Link
Pentax have left FF too late, they have limited FF lens options available, the only real market for one would be current Pentax users and many of us have too many DA lenses to make the change now anyway.
That said, I don't see the future being FF anyway. Sensor manufacturers will always prefer larger volumes of smaller sensors over smaller volumes of larger ones.
I reckon that the MP count will soon settle around the 10-12MP point (similar to 4K video resolution) on much smaller sensors. It'll be enough for most stills photography and 4K video will be embedded into almost every device (phone, tablet, camera etc.). The MP race will be superseded by the need to offer video at 50/60fps @ 4K - just like all the filters are now branded as 'HD' to be more trendy.
That said, I don't see the future being FF anyway. Sensor manufacturers will always prefer larger volumes of smaller sensors over smaller volumes of larger ones.
I reckon that the MP count will soon settle around the 10-12MP point (similar to 4K video resolution) on much smaller sensors. It'll be enough for most stills photography and 4K video will be embedded into almost every device (phone, tablet, camera etc.). The MP race will be superseded by the need to offer video at 50/60fps @ 4K - just like all the filters are now branded as 'HD' to be more trendy.
Posted 10/04/2014 - 03:59
Link
Personally I'm right into the video as much as stills, so this type of 'compromise camera' at 12 MP is absolutely fine by me. It provides whole sensor output as video (at 4k resolution) and 12MP is large enough for my stills. My K-30 is 16MP, which is only 25% bigger than 12MP anyway. That works for me.
What I'd like though is a DSLR (so I have a real optical viewfinder) with the approach above. This differs from the current mirrorless products doing the above.
What I'd like though is a DSLR (so I have a real optical viewfinder) with the approach above. This differs from the current mirrorless products doing the above.
Posted 10/04/2014 - 06:23
Link
johnha wrote:
Pentax have left FF too late, they have limited FF lens options available, the only real market for one would be current Pentax users and many of us have too many DA lenses to make the change now anyway.
That said, I don't see the future being FF anyway. Sensor manufacturers will always prefer larger volumes of smaller sensors over smaller volumes of larger ones.
I reckon that the MP count will soon settle around the 10-12MP point (similar to 4K video resolution) on much smaller sensors. It'll be enough for most stills photography and 4K video will be embedded into almost every device (phone, tablet, camera etc.). The MP race will be superseded by the need to offer video at 50/60fps @ 4K - just like all the filters are now branded as 'HD' to be more trendy.
I agree on the aspect of Pentax Users having invested a lot into APS-C image circle lenses, but overall I don't agree about FF not being the FuturePentax have left FF too late, they have limited FF lens options available, the only real market for one would be current Pentax users and many of us have too many DA lenses to make the change now anyway.
That said, I don't see the future being FF anyway. Sensor manufacturers will always prefer larger volumes of smaller sensors over smaller volumes of larger ones.
I reckon that the MP count will soon settle around the 10-12MP point (similar to 4K video resolution) on much smaller sensors. It'll be enough for most stills photography and 4K video will be embedded into almost every device (phone, tablet, camera etc.). The MP race will be superseded by the need to offer video at 50/60fps @ 4K - just like all the filters are now branded as 'HD' to be more trendy.
Mobile Device's are getting increasingly better quality cameras and have almost killed compacts, and they will only get better. The Enthusiast and pro market is going to have to push things to a higher quality to widen the gap between the mobile device capabilities and currently the only format doing that is FF and beyond.
APS-C isn't progressing IQ wise. The Pentax evolution is a good example. The K-5 was released in 2010 and was a majestic revolution compared to the K20D/K-7 in IQ offering an almost 3 stop increase in Dynamic range and ISO performance. Yet here we are into 2014 and, AA filter arguments aside, we have no increase in IQ whatsoever, in fact at very high ISOs, >6400, the K-3 IQ is worse than the K-5 series simply because it's put MP count before IQ.
The increase in IQ offered by modern FF sensors however is getting better. I know Sony's A7s was aimed at video, but a nice side effect is that it shows the sense in sensible MP counts and better IQ is a positive for still images.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 10/04/2014 - 06:25
Link
richandfleur wrote:
Personally I'm right into the video as much as stills, so this type of 'compromise camera' at 12 MP is absolutely fine by me. It provides whole sensor output as video (at 4k resolution) and 12MP is large enough for my stills. My K-30 is 16MP, which is only 25% bigger than 12MP anyway. That works for me.
What I'd like though is a DSLR (so I have a real optical viewfinder) with the approach above. This differs from the current mirrorless products doing the above.
A Pentax K-FF DSLR with a 3 stop increase over the K-5 would be fantastic whatever MP count it had. The 12MP Sony A7s FF sensor achieves this
Personally I'm right into the video as much as stills, so this type of 'compromise camera' at 12 MP is absolutely fine by me. It provides whole sensor output as video (at 4k resolution) and 12MP is large enough for my stills. My K-30 is 16MP, which is only 25% bigger than 12MP anyway. That works for me.
What I'd like though is a DSLR (so I have a real optical viewfinder) with the approach above. This differs from the current mirrorless products doing the above.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2096 posts
13 years
North Island - New Zealand
why limit your DR requirements to that of the human eye?
12MP seems a bit low in todays product world. I don't crop much but when I do it's nice to know it's an option. Truth be told though, 12MP would be fine for me.
As I understand it, video is harder to achieve with higher resolution sensors as they capture so much information but ultimately have to discard it down to 2MP for Full HD video. That's why we have 120 fps video on an iPhone 5 with an 8 MP sensor, but not on many DSLR's or mirrorless equivalents yet.
I'm all for video, and love the look of a DSLR produced video, so anything that advances that gets a tick from me. Great to see the K-30 hack work progressing over on the other forum on this front. Hopefully that leads to sensible options that should have been native to Pentax anyway, such as focus peaking during video recording, actual real Mechanical stabilisation and higher image bitrates etc.
Super high ISO values are a laugh, but typically they mean better usable ISO ranges at the bottom end. Several companies are pushing the 250,000 and 400,000 ISO range now, so hopefully they've good at higher bottom end ISO ranges. If Pentax uses Sony sensors then hopefully there is some flow down there.
If a DSLR, or mirrorless with one of those 'real' optical equivalent viewfinders, offered more DR, higher noiseless ISO values, and at a sensible price, then I might be keen, even if it was at 12MP only resolution. Obviously it provides a future product development path for Pentax also.