Pentax K-70 with "accelerator unit"

rawr · 06-13-2016, 09:14 PM

The K-70 'accelerator' chip could just be a RAM bank, for all we know. Although only a 'dumb' chip, it could still 'accelerate' things quite usefully.

In looking at some of the images of the iFixit tear-down of the Olympus Pen EPL-7 that Dpreview recently featured, the big secondary chip on the main board from Elpida is just a DDR RAM chip (according to the part numbering convention used by Elpida). Scratch off the 'Pentax' logo masking the top of the K-70 'accelerator' chip, and it could easily turn out to be the same sort of chip.

reh321 · 06-14-2016, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by AggieDad

Is all this new computing power going to result in a perfect capture every time? I mean exquisite (golden hour style) lighting, elegant framing, and perfectly timed wildlife shots.

If so, I'm all in. If not, maybe I'll just stay with my K-5IIs.

The claim is that it helps in reducing noise.
I believe that it is there to make the higher ISO settings useable.
The proof will be in results from early adopters.

There would be no reason for you to get a "lesser" camera.
You didn't upgrade to K-3 or K-3ii, so there is no reason to expect you to "upgrade" to K-70, or even to whatever follows K-3ii, probably later this year.
If you are satisfied with what you have, you are allowed to continue to use it until a motor dies.

Others of us are allowed to feel differently.

richandfleur · 06-14-2016, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by reh321

If you are satisfied with what you have, you are allowed to continue to use it until a motor dies.

That is quite likely very soon if you are lucky enough to have a K-30...

D1N0 · 06-14-2016, 12:38 PM - **1 Like**

When you hang around forums problems with certain models are extremely magnified. Not nearly every K-30 develops this problem.

richandfleur · 06-14-2016, 01:17 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by D1N0

When you hang around forums problems with certain models are extremely magnified. Not nearly every K-30 develops this problem.

Mine did.

More chance of it happening if you have a K-30 than if not.

reh321 · 06-14-2016, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by richandfleur

That is quite likely very soon if you are lucky enough to have a K-30...

Originally posted by D1N0

When you hang around forums problems with certain models are extremely magnified. Not nearly every K-30 develops this problem.

The originally-reported problem with K-30 / 50 cameras was with the aperture control mechanism; having read lots of posts on the subject, I believe they had a quality-control problem. Later, we started hearing problems with motors - I believe some of the reports came from people who tried to use the camera, despite the control issue, and their "kluges" put an extra strain on the aperture motor. Other reported problems seem to come from people who expect the same endurance from a consumer-grade camera that you routinely get from a professional-grade camera. For example, surveying my saved files, I find that I take maybe 500 pictures a year, virtually never using burst mode; at my rate of photography, it would take me over ten years to reach a shutter count of 7K, but those who have their K-50 die at 7K list this as a unexpected failure.

The truth is that we have no reliable statistics, no way of knowing what the probability is of a K-50 or K-S2 failing at any particular point. My approach is to keep an M42-mount kit with me and hope I don't need it.

Tau-Ceti · 06-14-2016, 02:56 PM

The K-30 is more durable than that. I have already shot more than 24.000 Pictures in about 2,5 Years. Mostly high continous shooting.

Nicolas06 · 07-02-2016, 02:03 AM

All in all, the only thing this kind of thing provide is more processing power, maybe dedicated to specific tasks, but it just make things faster. You computer at home likely it is much more capable and honestly if the export with NR applied take 10 seconds of a 4 core 3Ghz CPU, who care?

We can think it go further to what Dxo, Lightroom and other are able to extract from a RAW, we can even think it is kind of thing that participate to the raw creation itself improving things in a way that couldn't be done after. Both would really increase image quality. Or quite valuable in its own right it could just pre process raws or JPEG to make them more pleasant while not doing anything really that different than you could do with your own post processing software, meaning it save time or reduce need for advanced post processing tool, but doesn't really alter the actual quality of picture we are accustomed to see.

tyronet2000 · 08-06-2016, 01:04 AM - **1 Like**

Just got my K-70 yesterday so when I get bored I'll take it to pieces and see what's inside. Watch this space

totsmuyco · 08-06-2016, 01:48 AM

Now this feature excites me. I hope this will make new APSC cameras capable of taking noise free images at ISO 3200. Just dreaming out loud again.

rawr · 08-06-2016, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by totsmuyco

I hope this will make new APSC cameras capable of taking noise free images at ISO 3200.

You can do that today with any APS-C.

Pretty much all you have to do is light up the scene very brightly. Mainly in poor light do you see IQ significantly and visibly start to fall apart at higher ISO's.

In particular, if you shoot flash, and accidentally leave the auto-ISO on (like I have a few times

), as long as the highlights aren't totally blown away, ISO 3200 and above can look perfectly OK on K-3/K-5.

totsmuyco · 08-06-2016, 05:23 AM

Yes rawr, it will be okay at high light. However, it's high ISO low light that I want Pentax to improve on.

reh321 · 08-06-2016, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

All in all, the only thing this kind of thing provide is more processing power, maybe dedicated to specific tasks, but it just make things faster. You computer at home likely it is much more capable and honestly if the export with NR applied take 10 seconds of a 4 core 3Ghz CPU, who care?

We can think it go further to what Dxo, Lightroom and other are able to extract from a RAW, we can even think it is kind of thing that participate to the raw creation itself improving things in a way that couldn't be done after. Both would really increase image quality. Or quite valuable in its own right it could just pre process raws or JPEG to make them more pleasant while not doing anything really that different than you could do with your own post processing software, meaning it save time or reduce need for advanced post processing tool, but doesn't really alter the actual quality of picture we are accustomed to see.

You keep focusing on those of you who can use PP at home; what I hear about are those who take pictures at sports venues and want good images immediately, SOOC.

Nicolas06 · 08-06-2016, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by reh321

You keep focusing on those of you who can use PP at home; what I hear about are those who take pictures at sports venues and want good images immediately, SOOC.

Even with post processing at home and f/2.8 on APSC, this is FAR from easy and that 2EV more you can keep iso 400 when you be at iso 1600 iso with a slow lens or at iso 1600 when you'd be iso 6400 with a slow lens. And already it far from easy working at high shutter speed action/sport require and low light.

You'll get much better improvement on SOOC JPEG with an f/2.8 lens and a bit older gear than with latest APSC body and a variable apperture zoom. In term of prices that may be actually cheaper too.

Nicolas06 · 08-06-2016, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by reh321

You keep focusing on those of you who can use PP at home; what I hear about are those who take pictures at sports venues and want good images immediately, SOOC.

Even with post processing at home and f/2.8 on APSC, this is FAR from easy and that 2EV more you can keep iso 400 when you be at iso 1600 iso with a slow lens or at iso 1600 when you'd be iso 6400 with a slow lens. And already it far from easy working at high shutter speed action/sport require and low light.

You'll get much better improvement on SOOC JPEG with an f/2.8 lens and a bit older gear than with latest APSC body and a variable apperture zoom. In term of prices that may be actually cheaper too.

Noticably the K70 AF isn't any better from Pentax Forum review than KS2, so time worse than a K3. And so with that K70 + 55-300 in low light you would get not only lot of noise but also lot of miss focussed shot when shooting action. That's not for a good experience and that promise a disaster for the SOOC jpegs.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 17-70 "Contemporary": compatibility problems with Shake Reduction	sTi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	151	05-06-2021 03:36 PM
Exposure accuracy of "A" lenses on older film bodies ("K" series)	Lititz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	05-26-2015 01:59 AM
"Click" in between "C" and "MF" mode on focus selector? K-50	maxwolfie	Pentax K-30 & K-50	3	01-29-2015 04:19 AM
Optical differences between Pentax "K", "M", and "A" lenses	6BQ5	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	01-10-2014 01:02 PM
Pentax F 70-210 zoom with "A" = good, heavy?	timmijo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	03-20-2013 07:29 AM

06-13-2016, 09:14 PM	#31
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	The K-70 'accelerator' chip could just be a RAM bank, for all we know. Although only a 'dumb' chip, it could still 'accelerate' things quite usefully. In looking at some of the images of the iFixit tear-down of the Olympus Pen EPL-7 that Dpreview recently featured, the big secondary chip on the main board from Elpida is just a DDR RAM chip (according to the part numbering convention used by Elpida). Scratch off the 'Pentax' logo masking the top of the K-70 'accelerator' chip, and it could easily turn out to be the same sort of chip.

06-14-2016, 07:55 AM	#32
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,184	Originally posted by AggieDad Is all this new computing power going to result in a perfect capture every time? I mean exquisite (golden hour style) lighting, elegant framing, and perfectly timed wildlife shots. If so, I'm all in. If not, maybe I'll just stay with my K-5IIs. The claim is that it helps in reducing noise. I believe that it is there to make the higher ISO settings useable. The proof will be in results from early adopters. There would be no reason for you to get a "lesser" camera. You didn't upgrade to K-3 or K-3ii, so there is no reason to expect you to "upgrade" to K-70, or even to whatever follows K-3ii, probably later this year. If you are satisfied with what you have, you are allowed to continue to use it until a motor dies. Others of us are allowed to feel differently.

06-14-2016, 12:06 PM	#33
richandfleur Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand Photos: Albums Posts: 1,788	Originally posted by reh321 If you are satisfied with what you have, you are allowed to continue to use it until a motor dies. That is quite likely very soon if you are lucky enough to have a K-30...

06-14-2016, 12:38 PM - 1 Like	#34
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	When you hang around forums problems with certain models are extremely magnified. Not nearly every K-30 develops this problem.

06-14-2016, 01:17 PM - 1 Like	#35
richandfleur Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand Photos: Albums Posts: 1,788	Originally posted by D1N0 When you hang around forums problems with certain models are extremely magnified. Not nearly every K-30 develops this problem. Mine did. More chance of it happening if you have a K-30 than if not.

06-14-2016, 01:26 PM	#36
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,184	Originally posted by richandfleur That is quite likely very soon if you are lucky enough to have a K-30... Originally posted by D1N0 When you hang around forums problems with certain models are extremely magnified. Not nearly every K-30 develops this problem. The originally-reported problem with K-30 / 50 cameras was with the aperture control mechanism; having read lots of posts on the subject, I believe they had a quality-control problem. Later, we started hearing problems with motors - I believe some of the reports came from people who tried to use the camera, despite the control issue, and their "kluges" put an extra strain on the aperture motor. Other reported problems seem to come from people who expect the same endurance from a consumer-grade camera that you routinely get from a professional-grade camera. For example, surveying my saved files, I find that I take maybe 500 pictures a year, virtually never using burst mode; at my rate of photography, it would take me over ten years to reach a shutter count of 7K, but those who have their K-50 die at 7K list this as a unexpected failure. The truth is that we have no reliable statistics, no way of knowing what the probability is of a K-50 or K-S2 failing at any particular point. My approach is to keep an M42-mount kit with me and hope I don't need it.

06-14-2016, 02:56 PM	#37
Tau-Ceti Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 60 Original Poster	The K-30 is more durable than that. I have already shot more than 24.000 Pictures in about 2,5 Years. Mostly high continous shooting.

07-02-2016, 02:03 AM	#38
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	All in all, the only thing this kind of thing provide is more processing power, maybe dedicated to specific tasks, but it just make things faster. You computer at home likely it is much more capable and honestly if the export with NR applied take 10 seconds of a 4 core 3Ghz CPU, who care? We can think it go further to what Dxo, Lightroom and other are able to extract from a RAW, we can even think it is kind of thing that participate to the raw creation itself improving things in a way that couldn't be done after. Both would really increase image quality. Or quite valuable in its own right it could just pre process raws or JPEG to make them more pleasant while not doing anything really that different than you could do with your own post processing software, meaning it save time or reduce need for advanced post processing tool, but doesn't really alter the actual quality of picture we are accustomed to see.

08-06-2016, 01:04 AM - 1 Like	#39
tyronet2000 New Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Northumberland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 15	Just got my K-70 yesterday so when I get bored I'll take it to pieces and see what's inside. Watch this space

08-06-2016, 01:48 AM	#40
totsmuyco Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Iloilo City Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,276	Now this feature excites me. I hope this will make new APSC cameras capable of taking noise free images at ISO 3200. Just dreaming out loud again.

08-06-2016, 03:21 AM	#41
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by totsmuyco I hope this will make new APSC cameras capable of taking noise free images at ISO 3200. You can do that today with any APS-C. Pretty much all you have to do is light up the scene very brightly. Mainly in poor light do you see IQ significantly and visibly start to fall apart at higher ISO's. In particular, if you shoot flash, and accidentally leave the auto-ISO on (like I have a few times ), as long as the highlights aren't totally blown away, ISO 3200 and above can look perfectly OK on K-3/K-5.

08-06-2016, 05:23 AM	#42
totsmuyco Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Iloilo City Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,276	Yes rawr, it will be okay at high light. However, it's high ISO low light that I want Pentax to improve on.

08-06-2016, 08:11 AM	#43
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,184	Originally posted by Nicolas06 All in all, the only thing this kind of thing provide is more processing power, maybe dedicated to specific tasks, but it just make things faster. You computer at home likely it is much more capable and honestly if the export with NR applied take 10 seconds of a 4 core 3Ghz CPU, who care? We can think it go further to what Dxo, Lightroom and other are able to extract from a RAW, we can even think it is kind of thing that participate to the raw creation itself improving things in a way that couldn't be done after. Both would really increase image quality. Or quite valuable in its own right it could just pre process raws or JPEG to make them more pleasant while not doing anything really that different than you could do with your own post processing software, meaning it save time or reduce need for advanced post processing tool, but doesn't really alter the actual quality of picture we are accustomed to see. You keep focusing on those of you who can use PP at home; what I hear about are those who take pictures at sports venues and want good images immediately, SOOC.

08-06-2016, 09:02 AM	#44
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by reh321 You keep focusing on those of you who can use PP at home; what I hear about are those who take pictures at sports venues and want good images immediately, SOOC. Even with post processing at home and f/2.8 on APSC, this is FAR from easy and that 2EV more you can keep iso 400 when you be at iso 1600 iso with a slow lens or at iso 1600 when you'd be iso 6400 with a slow lens. And already it far from easy working at high shutter speed action/sport require and low light. You'll get much better improvement on SOOC JPEG with an f/2.8 lens and a bit older gear than with latest APSC body and a variable apperture zoom. In term of prices that may be actually cheaper too.

08-06-2016, 09:05 AM	#45
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by reh321 You keep focusing on those of you who can use PP at home; what I hear about are those who take pictures at sports venues and want good images immediately, SOOC. Even with post processing at home and f/2.8 on APSC, this is FAR from easy and that 2EV more you can keep iso 400 when you be at iso 1600 iso with a slow lens or at iso 1600 when you'd be iso 6400 with a slow lens. And already it far from easy working at high shutter speed action/sport require and low light. You'll get much better improvement on SOOC JPEG with an f/2.8 lens and a bit older gear than with latest APSC body and a variable apperture zoom. In term of prices that may be actually cheaper too. Noticably the K70 AF isn't any better from Pentax Forum review than KS2, so time worse than a K3. And so with that K70 + 55-300 in low light you would get not only lot of noise but also lot of miss focussed shot when shooting action. That's not for a good experience and that promise a disaster for the SOOC jpegs.