Originally posted by Rondec I guess I don't understand the point of buying a K-1 II and then disabling the accelerator. You are paying more money for a camera that has a particular feature that you are disabling to make it equivalent to another camera without that feature.
The premise is that the K-1 has been discontinued. The K-1 II replaced it. It is not an alternative offer.
As a result, if you want to buy a Pentax full-frame camera, you are forced to also buy and use the accelerator processing, lock, stock and barrel.
Maybe, right now, one would still be able to get a K-1 but what if you want the improved AF-C performance of the K-1 II?
What if you want to use the "Dynamic Pixel Shift" feature of the K-1 II?
If you want those perks, you have no choice but accept the non-optional "accelerator" processing as well.
Why would that have to be the case?
Why not give people the choice, so that they have access to all the K-1 II perks and can use them or not use them whenever they see fit?
Originally posted by Rondec Anyway, I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.
That approach is a good solution if an impasse has been reached.
However, in our case, I believe our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding.
You don't have a problem with the K-1 II's mandatory "accelerator" processing for two reasons:
- You feel it is only a positive.
- You suggest anyone not liking it, should just get a K-1.
Regarding 2., see above; it's unfortunately not that easy.
Regarding 1., that's fine for you personally, but surely you are willing to grant others a different evaluation of the pros and cons of the "accelerator" processing, right? That's why you are using argument 2. as well, correct?
So, overall, I don't see why we should agree to disagree. I think we should just agree that only having the K-1 II as a choice is not ideal for everybody.