Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

SEVERAL generations, RE? … I believe it was first introduced on the K-3 II - wasn't it? And, now, on the KP, too. I think the FF K-1 and K-1 II also have it. Not sure about the K-70, though. It MAY have it, also …

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

All three of the currently available cameras - K-1ii, KP, and K-70 do pixel shift.

I wasn’t quite sure how to count ‘generations’, so I used “several” to denote “more than one camera in same line” and to indicate that their pixel shift has matured since it was first introduced by them.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, but the Pixel-Shift Feature, actually, debuted in the K-3 II. It has also been adopted in other models released since - so, they are ALL current generation. [The K-3 II is still out there, and can be bought new.]

Bill_de Loc: US

A couple of early hands on reviewers felt the biggest plus was the ergonomics. One seemed impressed when he said, "Now it feels more like a Nikon!".

---

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The K-1 provided standard ‘static’ {requires tripod} pixel-shift, while the K-1ii provides ‘dynamic’ {can be hand-held} pixel-shift. I don’t care what language is used, but that growth needs to be acknowledged.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, but the K-1/K-1 II - is one of the heaviest FF DSLRs out there, so - the hand-held biz - has to be balanced - with that concept ….

Bill_de Loc: US

Title

Sonys' new Camera announcement

No need to argue about Pentax here.

You're excuse will probably be another gem.

BTW - You know there is a Pentax thread here:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-601032-1.html

--

User ID

Whatever you been inhaling, you're obliged
to share .... especially if it's brownies !

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

What in the part you quoted is confusing you?
You do understand the pixel-shift part, don't you??

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

With pixel shift he's correct

User ID

Compared to all the previous a7R models it amounts
to 20% more pixels per row. So with no new tech the
pixels would still be 85% of their former size. Nothing
about which to get your panties in a twist. Keep calm
and carry on.

You flowers need you, so watch your blood pressure.

User ID

The files will be larger. You'll deal with it in the usual manner.

User ID

Right. 64GB is a small-ish card for such a camera.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

But the Pentax pixel shifting did not increase resolution. It was only 4 images and was used to improve the color for each pixel. This is going to be a lot easier to deal with when doing handheld than working with 16 images to increase both color accuracy and image resolution.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Bill_de,
I find this post of yours to be quite amusing though the "Pentaxers", rehess, Chris T, et al., in their quibbling over which Pentax model camera had what with respect to pixel shifting, may, in fact, be assisting me in my request (of sorts,) that I posted on July 18th, as seen on page 4 of this Topic.

Yes, I would like to know just how significant, from my practical viewpoint, this sensor pixel shift concept and technology is to whether it is effective even if one is just hand-holding the camera, i.e. not employing a tripod.

rehess' response, at first reading, appeared to confirm that this technology works when hand holding a camera. But the potential fault in my logic is believing that "pixel-shifting, schmixel-shifting," it’s all the same, regardless of which model camera has it.

So now I wonder, is there a significant difference between the design and implementation of pixel-shift technology by Sony as opposed to that by Pentax and other camera manufacturers? If so, then any response to my original challenge that involves cameras other than Sony is moot.

Another possible question (forgive me for not reviewing and remembering all the hype about the a7R IV,) is how does this compare with any previous Sony camera's use of pixel-shift technology?