[Kunzite]

The subject recognition and tracking is done using a 307k pixels RGBIr metering sensor. That's VGA resolution, and a higher number than Nikon's (D6 included), but the Canon 1Dx Mark III has 400k RGBIr pixels.

The "why are they targeting this niche?" comments are funny.
Before, it was "Pentax has nothing good enough for sports!"; now, it is "Pentax made something for sports, WHY???". Please make up your mind, people, instead of changing to be the opposite of whatever Pentax is doing :p

This isn't a sports camera, not in the sense of a 1Dx Mark III or D6. I see it rather as an outdoor, wildlife camera, and why not? sports but not the likes of Olympics. More like a local dirt motorcycle racing.
It isn't about entering new territories, but doing more, better where it was already used to some extent. This camera is an enabler.

[Brightcolours]

The Canon EOS 90D has a similar metering sensor, with slightly lower resolution (220.000 pixels), as does the Nikon D500 (180.000 pixels).

[Kunzite]

Previous Pentax cameras had an 86k pixels RGB metering sensor; going to a 307k RGBIr is quite a jump. That is the second best on a DSLR, regardless of the price.
I can't wait to see what it's capable of.

[Brightcolours]

Previous Pentax cameras had an 86k pixels RGB metering sensor; going to a 307k RGBIr is quite a jump. That is the second best on a DSLR, regardless of the price.
I can't wait to see what it's capable of.

Probably not much ;-)

Nikon's D500 is a bit better at tracking with the metering sensor information than the Canon EOS 90D, so it is not the resolution of the sensor but how the information is put to use.

[Kunzite]

Thanks, but I'd rather believe the camera itself than your anti-Pentax bias.

[davidmanze]

Probably not much ;-)

     Personally I will wait and see ...... I'm actually quite optimistic !!

[Kunzite]

So am I. Now, I require hard evidence before starting to believe it could match the D500 - but clearly, they've put some effort. 101 AF points from 27-33 (not happy with only 25 cross-type, but let's see the layout), metering sensor of 307k RGBIr pixels from 86k RGB... this is not your grandfather's SAFOX.

[davidmanze]

So am I. Now, I require hard evidence before starting to believe it could match the D500 - but clearly, they've put some effort. 101 AF points from 27-33 (not happy with only 25 cross-type, but let's see the layout), metering sensor of 307k RGBIr pixels from 86k RGB... this is not your grandfather's SAFOX.

 I wouldn't worry too much about about AF cross-points ...... when you see Nikon's technical solutions info  ...... you see that actually many of the higher priced telephoto lens can only use some of them ......
linked here:

https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d5_tips/af/focus_points/

 ....... the AF-S 600mm F4E FL can only use 63 cross points out of 153 ... tele-converters drop that down to 45 CPs...... with the gaps in between being line points ......
....... btw. ..... when you mount the Tamron 150-600mm G2 on the D500 it won't focus in the extreme corners at 600mm .... so who knows how many CPs are even being used at 600mm @ F6.3 ?? (max aperture @ 600mm)  .... yet no problems !!

  Pentax had a problem with AF as much that in AF-C, the subject distance before the camera would react to a focus change, was twice that of AF-S ........ (I did careful tests K3/K5) ...... probably because the processor was not capable of processing smaller incremental adjustments fast enough and had to be restrained ....... I call it dead-band ....
With two processors and its new AF array, hopefully the dead-band will be equally small in both AF-S and AF-C .....

[Kunzite]

So... people are noticing the K-1 II J Limited edition cameras... while ignoring the K-3 III.

In the meanwhile:
- there's a component supply issue so they weren't able to launch the camera at CP+. We're to expect news "in the near future"
- the camera was already reviewed by some Japanese magazines.
- face/eye/bird detection using the optical viewfinder. How many times I was told that's impossible for a SLR?
- improved tracking, too. I would not make any assumption based on the old cameras' behavior.
- better high ISO image quality than the K-1 II - yes, than the full frame camera.

[Klaus]

I think the primary problem with eye-detect AF in DSLRs is that you have to double the sensor essentially. If you can't use the primary sensor, you have to implement one in the viewfinder (in place of the classic AF sensor) - or you follow Sony's SLT concept. The Sony SLT 99 II has eye-detect AF for instance - thus Pentax won't be first anyway.

About the high-ISO claim - at the end of the day, it is about the ability to capture photons. I suppose you can still do some magic but there are natural limits. A bigger area can capture more photons - that's just physics. If Pentax has improved the sensor by whatever means, the same concept could be applied to a FF sensor again.