Originally posted by EssJayEff Just my "two cents," with which I am totally open to learning how I am misguided in spending those pennies and willing to invest them into making those two coins worth more.
You are not misguided. With the exception of one certain phrasing, I 100% agree with you.
Originally posted by EssJayEff If in-camera RAW file pre-processing truly isn't an issue, then why are there so many RAW converters for post-processing?
Well, there are several pragmatic reasons why multiple RAW converters exist that are independent of image quality.
However, it is true that there different demosaicing algorithms (RawTherapee even gives you a choice which one it uses) and different approaches to denoising, etc.
Sometimes, the optimal choice of demosaicing algorithm can depend on the image contents.
The nice property of RAW files is that future RAW processing techniques may unlock potential that currently isn't exploited yet. The less pre-tampering occurs with the RAW data, the higher the chances that future conversion/processing technology will be able to improve on today's results.
Originally posted by EssJayEff If so, having the files altered in-camera eliminates the possibility of taking advantage of even better noise reduction "out-camera."
It doesn't "eliminate" the possibility.
However, it is true that the processing by the K-1 II diminishes the possibilities to optimally extract all information.
This is already relevant today, even in the absence of advanced future RAW conversion approaches.
If you take deep stacks (comprising of many images) of high ISO images, say for astrophotography, with the K-1, a program like DeepSkyStacker can combine them to a single image that features a lot of detail and significantly reduced noise levels.
If you do the same with K-1 II images, the final image will contain not as much detail because the RAW files have already been smoothed before and the subtle information that was present in the K-1 image noise is gone before it can be averaged to a valid signal.
Most people will never require the advantages that untampered RAW can deliver and without A/B comparisons, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to distinguish the detail present in a K-1 file from a K-1 II file. This is in contrast to the striping/banding that Sony and other PDAF-employing mirrorless cameras exhibit. These artefacts are always recognisable when they occur, without any A/B comparisons required. This is why the criticism levelled at the K-1 II by DPReview is completely over the top and highly unfair, given the free pass other cameras receive for their shortcomings.