[Oakland Rob]

For Judas Sake, DP is crap site of dubious value by anyone who understands that the internet is full of fake news. DP has been owned by Amazon since 2007--their extensive "reviews" are biased towards selling products---period. Quality is not a virtue at DP. Pentax does not have the retail marketing arm that Amazon needs to fill their Photography links with vendors to sell their wares....Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al have dozens of vendors willing to list and pay to sell their cameras. Pentax is sold by select specialty companies and Photo retailers.

Simply: Pentax quality, accepted and applauded by virtually every objective review and comparison routinely gets panned by the BS reviewers at DP. F-- DP and Amazon for bastardizing fair and honest reviews.

Just saying.....

Amazon probably cares little whether Sony outsells Pentax; it's going to anyway. There are pages and pages and pages of Pentax stuff for sale there, sometimes by the "select special companies" like Adorama (maybe one of Pentax's bigger dealers in the US?). And that of course begs the question of whether Pentax SHOULD use Amazon as an authorized dealer. Their list of authorized ones is rather meh, and since brick and mortar places are disappearing maybe time to consider a bigger presence. I'm sure they have, just dunno why it hasn't happened. And BTW, it's odd to me their site has a list of UNauthorized dealers. Whaaa? It doesn't include Amazon on that list, although Amazon does itself sell Pentax branded gear. With apparently no warranty from Pentax.

I do think Pentax gear gets dis'd at DPR, but I doubt it's anything to do with Amazon and marketing, since Pentax is just not much of a player. I suspect it has more to do with reviewers themselves getting free swag, and just plain ol' prejudice against equipment they aren't familiar with and only pick up for a review. They seem to have trouble with stuff like pixel shift, could care less about old lenses, and I doubt they've ever even tried Astrotracer.

They do aggregate a lot of info on specs and have sample photos and stuff like that, and a nice active forum. So credit there. But I steer folks looking for reviews—even of Canikon equipment—elsewhere.

Contrast with Imaging Resource. Their reviews were so comprehensive that even a user of the camera can learn tips and techniques from reading them, even if one didn't agree with all of their conclusions.

[normhead]

I think the whole point is that K-1 II give clean output. If it wasn't emphasized by every web site that something nefarious was going on under the hood people would just be happy with it.

iso 12K



iso 6400

If people didn't underexpose six stops, compensate in post, and then complain about loss of detail through noise reduction they'd be happy about it.

[Kunzite]

I do think Pentax gear gets dis'd at DPR, but I doubt it's anything to do with Amazon and marketing, since Pentax is just not much of a player. I suspect it has more to do with reviewers themselves getting free swag, and just plain ol' prejudice against equipment they aren't familiar with and only pick up for a review. They seem to have trouble with stuff like pixel shift, could care less about old lenses, and I doubt they've ever even tried Astrotracer.

They do aggregate a lot of info on specs and have sample photos and stuff like that, and a nice active forum. So credit there. But I steer folks looking for reviews—even of Canikon equipment—elsewhere.

Contrast with Imaging Resource. Their reviews were so comprehensive that even a user of the camera can learn tips and techniques from reading them, even if one didn't agree with all of their conclusions.

I think you're spot on; it's a question of understanding and effort put into a "marginal" brand.
Too bad they don't make use of the forum community, quite a few there would gladly assist (as in advising, checking the results, etc.). Stuff like Adobe software not supporting Pixel Shift, a simple question could've avoided an embarrassing article.

"DE: [...]One of our main editors is a huge Pentax fan...
TA: Mr. Tomkins." - Ricoh @ CP+: Rewarding K-1 fans with a major upgrade, plus what comes next after the K-3 II?
Imaging Resource has Mike Tomkins - Mr. Takashi Arai@Ricoh was immediately able to name him - someone highly familiar with Pentax equipment. And, of course, there's Dave Etchells, Founder and Chef Editor; I never got a hint of bias from him.

[Class A]

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.

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.

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.

[biz-engineer]

Basically they photoshop the clone brush in camera.

I don't know exactly how that works, but I believe they at least process the raw data to compensate for the loss of light over PDAF zones, the residue of compensation appears as stripes when pushing shadows. I would guess that there is some loss of S/N in zones of the images sensor that are used for auto-focus. Mirrorless has some issues, some companies decide to put issues "under the carpet" considering most customers will never see it. While some other companies may decide not to go mirrorless. Given the kind of FF mirrorless cameras that Canon and Nikon have released, it's obvious what kind of customers they are aiming at, mostly customers shooting JPEGs on vacation and other non-pro situations. Fuji haven't implemented PDAF on their GFX50, likely for a good reason.

[Class A]

I do wonder what percentage of cameras on the market have truly "pure" raw, with nothing happening under the surface to adjust noise levels or anything else.

There are a lot of cases where in-camera RAW processing can be demonstrated.
The difference to the K-1 II, however, is that many cameras only start tampering with RAW data at much higher ISO settings. DPReview took issue with the fact that the processing of the K-1 II already starts at ISO 640 which is indeed very low. I agree that any manipulation should be applied as late (in terms of ISO level) as possible (ideally not at all).

In any event, I don't think it is a good argument to state that other cameras perform similar tricks. That doesn't improve the K-1 II situation. I'd agree, though, that it is an argument as to why DPReview should not have made such a fuzz, almost pretending as if the same, similar, or even worse processing doesn't occur with other cameras.

The difference here, I suppose, is that Pentax has admitted to putting a specific accelerator on the camera.

I don't agree.

RAW manipulation can be measured. The kind of processing the K-1 II performs manifests itself as an attenuation of high frequencies in 2D-Fourier plots (see the work by Bill Claff). No admission on behalf of the manufacturer is required to detect the manipulation. DxOMark also checks whether any RAW smoothing takes place and has identified it for other camera models as well (e.g., several older Pentax models).

In summary, there are objective reasons as to why Pentax should have made the "accelerator" processing optional.
Even if there weren't objective reasons, I still think it would have been smart to provide the option just to close the door for any unreasonable accusations.

[biz-engineer]

I do think Pentax gear gets dis'd at DPR, but I doubt it's anything to do with Amazon and marketing, since Pentax is just not much of a player.

According to amazon, amazon policy is to provide unbiased customers feedback, and it seems that that is what they do according to customer feedback of products sold by amazon sites. That said, DPR is not integrated into amazon internal operations, DPR operate standalone and get financed based of specific indicators (they did not discontinue sponsorships after being purchased by amazon). Amazon keep DPR CEO in place, they did not replace him by management from amazon. Therefore, DPR may behave in order to max out their indicators (and get money accordingly) while eventually violating amazon own commercial policy as a side effect. It could be worth addressing the issues to Jeff Bezos, he used to answer some of customers emails (long ago, I had an exchange with him when amazon was still a startup), but given how large is amazon now, I'm not sure if any issue with camera sales would be enough to catch Jeff's attention. Anyway, I'm not going to write him an email, because the issues with Pentax are repeated over and over again, it would be more up to Ricoh to work on their own brand management.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 12-26-2018 at 11:15 AM.

[Class A]

0% of mirrorless cameras with pdaf have non-pre-cooked-raws.

I am the first to agree that current OSPDAF technology is most likely a compromise between optimal IQ and the ability to focus using the main sensor.

Using the main sensor has advantages for video -- an example how video capabilities can compromise the performance of the still photography aspect -- but also for avoiding potential issues with secondary-sensor PDAF (-> alignment of the PDAF sensors with the main sensor). Of course, mirrorless cameras depend on it to avoid the issues with pure CDAF (contrast-based AF) and thus suffer from the side-effects and limitations of OSPDAF. On limitation is the failure to operate well in low light. Another problem is that OSPDAF by no means remove all problems of PDAF systems as we know them from DSLRs. For instance, AF assessment is often made using an aperture that is different from the shooting aperture, thus introducing the potential for focus shift. Such limitations, are not highlighted by DPReview.

Known well-documented side effects of OSPDAF are striping (vertical lines in certain backlit situations) and banding (a consequence of non-optimal compensation of the OSPDAF pixels vs standard pixels) when the image is heavily pushed. The latter compromises DR and I cannot believe that DPReview, instead of criticising such cameras for a compromised DR, simply states that most photographer won't run into the issue.

Having said all the above, I'm not sure how correct your statement about 100% of mirrorless cameras with OSPDAF cooking their RAW files is. Potentially the required compensation can be done without harm in most cases and only in certain extreme situations (backlight, deep shadows that are pushed) problems arise. All modern sensors do some manipulation to ensure that all rows and columns are converted the same way (with the same amplification). One could regard this as "RAW cooking" but it is more appropriately understood as non-harmful correction measures.

My knowledge of current OSPDAF systems is not deep enough to judge whether there is always "cooking" going on, or only sometimes. In theory, an OSPDAF sensel can pretty much detect the same information as a regular sensel with the proper reconstruction (-> see Canon's dual pixel AF system) but I think it is quite common today that this ideal scenario is not achieved.

Again, shame that DPReview does not appropriately highlight these issues but instead relentlessly sings the tired old song of DSLRs belonging on the graveyard of technology. N.B., we had to endure that about 10 years already because that's how long mirrorless has been announced to overtake DSLR technology "in the next couple of years".

[Class A]

...and I doubt they've ever even tried Astrotracer.

Rishi Sanyal claims that it "never works".
Maybe he's only parroting and never has tried it himself.

DPReview certainly did not test the Astrotracer feature on the K-1 (II) because "the weather in Seattle is not good enough to permit astrophotography" (paraphrased).

[Merv-O]

Amazon probably cares little whether Sony outsells Pentax; it's going to anyway. There are pages and pages and pages of Pentax stuff for sale there, sometimes by the "select special companies" like Adorama (maybe one of Pentax's bigger dealers in the US?). And that of course begs the question of whether Pentax SHOULD use Amazon as an authorized dealer. Their list of authorized ones is rather meh, and since brick and mortar places are disappearing maybe time to consider a bigger presence. I'm sure they have, just dunno why it hasn't happened. And BTW, it's odd to me their site has a list of UNauthorized dealers. Whaaa? It doesn't include Amazon on that list, although Amazon does itself sell Pentax branded gear. With apparently no warranty from Pentax.

I do think Pentax gear gets dis'd at DPR, but I doubt it's anything to do with Amazon and marketing, since Pentax is just not much of a player. I suspect it has more to do with reviewers themselves getting free swag, and just plain ol' prejudice against equipment they aren't familiar with and only pick up for a review. They seem to have trouble with stuff like pixel shift, could care less about old lenses, and I doubt they've ever even tried Astrotracer.

They do aggregate a lot of info on specs and have sample photos and stuff like that, and a nice active forum. So credit there. But I steer folks looking for reviews—even of Canikon equipment—elsewhere.

Contrast with Imaging Resource. Their reviews were so comprehensive that even a user of the camera can learn tips and techniques from reading them, even if one didn't agree with all of their conclusions.

That's my point: DP Review/Amazon wants to sell units (they make commissions on same). Pentax is a niche brand--ergo: AMAZON tells the world it sucks, because they can spend the same overhead paying the "fake News" editors at DP the same amount to market and/or laud new mirrorless systems or mass market appeal CanIkonOny products to the uninformed masses.


DP also pans Leica most of the time...they're expensive, outdated, not a good value, etc. Why? For the same reason as they diss Pentax: It's all about the Benjamins, Drachmas, Euros and Pounds....period. No other motivation. I appreciate you thought about it, but in the end, it's a $$$$ decision.


I for one, like Pentax for the same reasons those phonies at DP dislike Pentax: evolution and perfection of a model is superior to simply regurgitating "new" cheap cameras that are disgarded after two or three years. A new KIA and a new BMW will look the same in the showroom--get back to me in 5 years as to what car has more intrinsic (and resale value). Pentax is built for the long haul--Amazon is designed to push out more and more products for profit....

---------- Post added 12-26-18 at 11:36 AM ----------

Rishi Sanyal claims that it "never works".
Maybe he's only parroting and never has tried it himself.

DPReview certainly did not test the Astrotracer feature on the K-1 (II) because "the weather in Seattle is not good enough to permit astrophotography" (paraphrased).

or didn't want to read the directions and spend the time to enjoy the features of the K-1ii properly... He's a PUTZ

[punkrachmaninov]

Chris and Jordan certainly got what they wanted under the tree this year!! The gift that keeps on giving... They lit Pentax Forums up like a dusty ol' XMAS tree!!

🎄🎅🍿😂

Oh man, this place--I can't even bring myself to read the whole ten pages... Instead I just keep trying to figure out whose drunken (great) idea this was?Jordan and Chris must be laughing soo much harder than I am. Are either of them members?

Say it with me Pentaxians:
M-I-R-R-O-R-L-E-S-S... I-N-N-O-V-A-T-I-O-N...

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

ECHO...ECho... echo... echo..... PENTAX... PENtax... pentax... pentax... 🤣

[normhead]

Instead I just keep trying to figure out whose drunken (great) idea this was?Jordan and Chris must be laughing soo much harder than I am. Are either of them members?

They aren't laughing as hard as I am at their gross stupidity. The fact that they are so predictable, so constant and so locked into an unintelligent mindset makes them funny, in a "look at those donkeys trying to reach the carrot bin on the other side of the fence" kind of way.

Donkey Pee Reporters.

[biz-engineer]

M-I-R-R-O-R-L-E-S-S... I-N-N-O-V-A-T-I-O-N...

All of the first commercial compact digital camera were mirrorless already 20 years ago, focusing via CDAF algorithm from the CCD image sensor itself. It's old.

[SSGGeezer]

"look at those donkeys trying to reach the carrot bin on the other side of the fence" kind of way.
Donkey Pee Reporters.

^^^^^^^^^^^
I laughed out loud at this one! Good take Norm! Heal fast, and have a great New Year.

[gaweidert]

I own a K1and a K1-II. I prefer the K1-II. Most of my shots are made between ISO 100 and 400 so I really do not care much about ISO 56,000. My K1 started out fine, but then developed the dreaded shutter shake anomaly. I discovered this by looking at the original shots made with my K1 and then looking at shots made over the ensuing year. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm


My K1-II had been rock solid in this department. My regret was not getting my K1 upgraded as I bet that I would have found that this was fixed as part of the upgrade. .


As to the lack of significant upgrades, that is the way Pentax does things. The Spotmatic II was even less an upgrade from the Spotmatic than the K1-II was from the K1.