Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and call this rumor a fake, or at least a misinterpreted leak. I have outlined the inconsistencies with it as written.
Quote Originally Posted by danic
[I][SIZE="2"]
The concept is to finally shake the creative shackles of the 35mm 'full-frame' format legacy which is based around motion-picture film format.
The inaccuracy starts here. While the film is the same width as motion picture film, the 35mm 'full frame' format bears little resemblance to most motion picture film. In fact, motion picture film has more in common with the DX/APS-C format than 35mm stills- the recorded area in motion picture film, due to vertically traveling film, results in a very similar dimension to an APS-C frame, with older films using a slightly taller 4:3 aspect ratio.

rumour has it as a 1.30x crop bridge-format...with an important twist (or lack of twist, if you will). In the digital age, it is an anachronism to rely on a physical selection of a landscape or portrait modes.
The newly coined DFX sensor will be a _square-format_ (23.5 x 23.5mm).
I wouldn't call it an anachronism. While it is convenient to choose your composition in post, having a rectangular sensor means that if you have a rectangular composition, with appropriate lens choice you will be able to avoid waste. I also take issue with calling it a '1.30x' crop, as when you look at it, your horizontal field of view retains the 1.5x crop, while your vertical FOV goes to a 1.0x crop. 1.3x crop implies that horizontal AND vertical field of view are larger than APS-C but smaller than 35mm.

Because the image-circle of the square DFX format is no larger than that of rectangular DA format, it could allow complete compatibility of Pentax DFX bodies with DA lenses (and of course FA, A, M, K, S lenses).
Really, now? Think about it this way. The lenses have been designed with the rectangular format in mind. If you are trying to design small and light lenses like the Pentax DA's (which, I might add, are often taken by their sister company Tokina and rebadged and set up for use with other cameras), you design your lens around the optimal image circle for the format you're using. This means that the extremes of the 24mm width of the sensor only need to be covered for 16mm in height. If you extend this height by 25% on each side, for a total of 24mm height, you will almost certainly be pushing the boundaries of the image circle, if not flat out exceeding it. Then don't forget the fancy petal lens hoods we all have now. Those are designed with sensor height in mind, too, and block out stray light within very tight tolerances of sensor height, so using a taller sensor would negate their use.
You can always use full frame lenses, of course. But then you lose the advantage of having an appropriate horizontal field of view for the sensor width.

The total DFX sensor area is 1.5x larger than APS-C. Based on the same pixel-pitch as the K20D's sensor, the new DFX sensor in the K3D* should field 22 megapixels (21.94MP).
I'd just like to point out that if the intention is to be cropping to fit your intended composition, whether in camera or in post, it's probably wiser to consider the K20D sensor's resolution as the realized resolution. I know I don't have very many perfectly square shots.

While the K3D* body will be taller than the K20D body due to the taller sensor, taller viewfinder and taller rear-LCD, the K3D* will not be bigger than the K20D+vertical grip, and much smaller and lighter than 35mm full-frame cameras.
I doubt the size difference would be that big. Compare a D300 and D700, or a 5DII and 50D. Smaller body due to the smaller prism, but the weights are pretty similar. If you go to an intermediate range, I doubt the difference would be enough to be a selling point.

Since a vertical grip is no longer desirable or necessary, the elimination of hardware and contact points for a vertical grip simplifies the internal design and frees up space for improved features that are important to photographers:
What's needed other than a handful of electronic contacts (doesn't take up much room at all) and the tripod socket? I dunno about y'all, but when I use a grip on my cameras, half the time it's for the additional battery storage- a desirable feature, I think.

- Vertically articulating 3.2" square-format LCD, high-resolution (530K dots) with SMC anti-glare coating for shooting at all angles indoors or out
This one pretty much has to be off. I've tried every standard resolution I can think of within the display standards that exist (e.g. 320x320, 480x480, 640x640, etc) for this square format display and none of the resolutions x 3dots/pixel works out to 530,000. The closest is 420x420x3... but I don't know of anything outputting at 420px.


I'm not discounting the idea, nor saying Pentax won't have a camera like this in the future. I just don't think this adds up the way people think.
(full disclosure: I may be a Nikon shooter, but I happen to also shoot Pentax, though it's just my 6x7 system)