[Class A]

ISO 8000 shots have less detail. That is true if you try to get rid of the noise in the image.

Sure, but from your two statements it doesn't follow that the same amount of detail is lost in both cases.

There is some detail lost, but it is certainly printable at probably up to 8 by 10 without anyone being bothered by the quality of the image.

Yes, no argument.

I don't think anyone has claimed that images like yours wouldn't be printable.

You are quoting me so it seems like you are presenting counterarguments to what I said.
However, it was never my intention to suggest that images like yours wouldn't be enjoyable to some or perhaps the majority.

I always said that we are talking about very small differences. I hope it is also obvious that I'm not supporting DPReview's grossly exaggerated views on the matter.

I'm just being intellectually honest. If I call out DPReview when they get something factually wrong, I cannot turn a blind eye to Pentaxians getting something factually wrong.
It is fine to prefer smoother images and it is fine to regard the loss of detail as inconsequential, that's all good.
What isn't OK is the attitude of some that use the term "RAW purist" in derogative way, denying anyone who wants to squeeze out the utmost last level of detail out of their images the opportunity to do so.

I think I'll have to leave it at that soon before the discussion becomes heated for no good reason.
There is no need for us Pentaxians to get divided. Live and let live.

I still have not heard the situations where you think that the detail lost would truly affect the image.

It happens every time the "accelerator" unit processes an image at high ISO levels. You yourself stated that "There is some detail lost, ". In many, many cases people won't care and just say "thanks for the low noise levels", but it isn't unreasonable to expect from gear at the level of the K-1 (II) to provide access to the real RAW data in order to unfold the full potential of the sensor. As I said, most likely future RAW converters will bring us improved techniques and it is one of the perks of shooting RAW that you can develop your masterpieces over and over again, just like our old lenses receive better and better image stabilisation each time a new body with improved image stabilisation is released.

If that's the only situation where this actually is problematic and even dedicated astro photographers can't tell for sure if it is an issue, surely it is pretty small.

Where do you get the idea from that "even dedicated astro photographers can't tell for sure if it is an issue"?
When has that been established?

Also, note that it isn't just astrophotography we are talking about. You can think of user MJKoski's images what you want but he was not happy with what the K-1 II did to the fur of the animals in his photos and to other details in other images. He preferred how the K-1 handled these situations. Personally, I don't think he is making these complaints up. Although the phenomena he is talking about could be categorised as "subtle", I fully see why they could bothersome to someone who wants to print large using images that were shot under demanding circumstances.

Regardless, to me, reviews of the K-1 II should state clearly that there is an accelerator. It will reduce color noise at the expense of a small amount of detail. This reduced detail is unlikely to be noticed at most viewing sizes.

Yes, that would be fine. Even better, the reviews would ideally state

"... This reduced detail is unlikely to be noticed at most viewing sizes. Those still concerned will be happy to learn that Ricoh just released a firmware update that allows anyone feeling so inclined to disable the improvements made available through the accelerator unit. In related news, DPReview had to revise their K-1 II review and had to alter their original score as the latter had been explicitly said to be influenced by the RAW processing that had been mandatory in the past. They also had to retract their recent categorisation of the K-1 II as being the second-worst camera of 2018 and issued a hand-written apology in an open letter to all Pentaxians."

I might have gotten carried away there, towards the end.

---

Last edited by Class A; 01-01-2019 at 09:04 AM.

[Class A]

I am sorry that neither DPR nor @Class A understands that niche.

How can you possibly include me in that statement given all the the statements I made about being happy for anyone being happy with the "accelerator" processing?

Are you reading my posts?

I never ever argued the "accelerator" unit should never have been employed. I only ask for the ability to opt out.
I may even opt in if I feel that would fit a particular shoot. Why not?

I only want the option to opt out and if that option would be granted, it wouldn't affect anybody negatively.
However, somehow I get thrown into the same bag as DPReview?
Why?

Please read my posts.

[Breakfastographer]

reviews of the K-1 II should state clearly that there is an accelerator. It will reduce color noise at the expense of a small amount of detail.

It might reduce luminance noise, but as far as colour noise is concerned, I don't see it doing much to it. In desktop noise processing, it was mostly luminance noise reduction that was required to achieve an approximate match between K-1 II accelerator- and K-1 desktop-processed file.

[Class A]

I assure you that I do respect Class A despite strongly disagreeing with him on this specific subject.

Thank you very much for your very kind words.

Please also accept my apologies if I ever left a decent standard of discussion.

I truly want all of us Pentaxians to peacefully co-exist despite various differences in viewpoints.

I'm excusing my, at times, robust discussion style on the basis that I'm not discussing subjective matters (e.g., as in "Is this a good composition?" "Is this too much noise?" "Is this a good image?").
I'm only adamant about technical foundations where I happen to know my stuff and would prefer everyone to be on the same page.
I'm more than happy to leave people alone with their views, but I don't respond well to accusations of me being wrong when I really know my stuff.

[reh321]

Fair point - that's kind of the difference between the Scott Kelby school of thought ("remove in post") and "authentic photography" as I've alluded to here.

What would be some "kinds" of file according to your meaning?

.dng, .jpg, .tif

[Class A]

You are assuming that "full development potential", whatever that is, is a goal. Maybe the goal is getting the 'best' (*) recording of what I saw {and when recording a meadow scene, I didn't see the ladybug sitting on a leaf even though it might be recorded as a single orange pixel on the sensor}.

I'm happy for anyone to have any goal, including "getting the 'best' (*) recording of what I saw".

All I'm suggesting is that those users who have "full development potential" as their goal are given that opportunity (as an option), as has been historically possible using RAW files.
The name "RAW" itself has a connotation of "unprocessed" as in "still allowing all processing options imaginable".

The 'accelerator' comes between the sensor and the processor - it doesn't naturally 'know' what kind of file(s) the processor is going to create

What makes you think it needs to know?

so this idea of turning the 'accelerator' on/off depending on user expectation would be a problem even if it were physically possible.

Why would it be a problem?

To be clear, I'm not talking about the camera making that decision autonomously. Turning the "accelerator" on of off would be like turning AF on or off. The camera does not need to know anything about my expectations or goals.

[Rondec]

Sure, but from your two statement it doesn't follow that the same amount of detail is lost in both cases.


Yes, no argument.

I don't think anyone has claimed that images like yours wouldn't be printable.

You are quoting me so it seems like you are presenting counterarguments to what I said.
However, it was never my intention to suggest that images like yours wouldn't be enjoyable to some or perhaps the majority.

I always said that we are talking about very small differences. I hope it is also obvious that I'm not supporting DPReview's grossly exaggerated views on the matter.

I'm just being intellectually honest. If I call out DPReview when they get something factually wrong, I cannot turn a blind eye to Pentaxians getting something factually wrong.
It is fine to prefer smoother images and it is fine to regard the loss of detail as inconsequential, that's all good.
What isn't OK is the attitude of some that use the term "RAW purist" in derogative way, denying anyone who wants to squeeze out the utmost last level of detail out of their images the opportunity to do so.

I think I'll have to leave it at that soon before the discussion becomes heated for no good reason.
There is no need for us Pentaxians to get divided. Live and let live.


It happens every time the "accelerator" unit processes an image at high ISO levels. You yourself stated that "There is some detail lost, ". In many, many cases people won't care and just say "thanks for the low noise levels", but it isn't unreasonable to expect from gear at the level of the K-1 (II) to provide access to the real RAW data in order to unfold the full potential of the sensor. As I said, most likely future RAW converters very likely will bring us improved techniques and it is one of the perks of shooting RAW that you can develop your masterpieces over and over again, just like our old lenses receive better and better image stabilisation each time a new body with improved image stabilisation is released.


Where do you get the idea from that "even dedicated astro photographers can't tell for sure if it is an issue"?
When has that been established?

Also, note that it isn't just astrophotography we are talking about. You can think of user MJKoski's images what you want but he was not happy with what the K-1 II did to the fur of the animals in his photos and to other details in other images. He preferred how the K-1 handled these situations. Personally, I don't think he is making these complaints up. Although the phenomena he is talking about could be categorised as "subtle", I fully see why they could bothersome to someone who wants to print large using images that were shot under demanding circumstances.


Yes, that would be fine. Even better, the reviews would ideally state

"... This reduced detail is unlikely to be noticed at most viewing sizes. Those still concerned will be happy to learn that Ricoh just released a firmware update that allows anyone feeling so inclined to disable the improvements made available through the accelerator unit. In related news, DPReview had to revise their K-1 II review and had to alter their original score as the latter had been explicitly said to be influenced by the RAW processing that had been mandatory in the past. They also had to retract their recent categorisation of the K-1 II as being the second-worst camera of 2018 and issued a hand-written apology in an open letter to all Pentaxians."

I might have gotten carried away there, towards the end.

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.

Anyway, I suppose we'll just agree to disagree. I have had significantly less issues with the K-1 II than the accelerator antagonists and DP Review seem to imply (that is to say, I have had no issues with it).

[Dan Rentea]

Who won this time: Pentax or Pentax? At least throw in some images from some shooting sessions to make the reading more enjoyable.

My models are scared to look at images when I zoom them at 50% because they don't want to see every imperfection of their skin and you are still "arguing" about who can spot the lack of detail on the eye of an ant when you zoom at 100% an image taken at ISO 2000.

Go out people and enjoy your K1 or K1 Mark II because this is a "battle" that will not make anyone a better photographer once you finish to draw the conclusions.

Happy new year to all!

[biz-engineer]

I believe it's possible to trigger a K1 and a K1 II with the same IR remote device. On top of the two SD cards slots, it's good to have some redundancy of cameras and lenses. Shoot both, one in each hand like in Lucky Lucky cartoons.

[reh321]

How can you possibly include me in that statement given all the the statements I made about being happy for anyone being happy with the "accelerator" processing?

Are you reading my posts?

I never ever argued the "accelerator" unit should never have been employed. I only ask for the ability to opt out.
I may even opt in if I feel that would fit a particular shoot. Why not?

I only want the option to opt out and if that option would be granted, it wouldn't affect anybody negatively.
However, somehow I get thrown into the same bag as DPReview?
Why?

Please read my posts.

You are assuming the 'accelerator' has an off/on signal line.

If I were involved in the design, I would advocate for passing actual ISO setting so 'accelerator' could make various decisions based on that setting.

As far as i know, pin-out for the 'accelerator' is a closely-held proprietary secret, so we don't know which is true, and I choose to base my reasoning on pin-out which seems most reasonable to me.

[Larrymc]

Who won this time: Pentax or Pentax? At least throw in some images from some shooting sessions to make the reading more enjoyable.

My models are scared to look at images when I zoom them at 50% because they don't want to see every imperfection of their skin and you are still "arguing" about who can spot the lack of detail on the eye of an ant when you zoom at 100% an image taken at ISO 2000.

Go out people and enjoy your K1 or K1 Mark II because this is a "battle" that will not make anyone a better photographer once you finish to draw the conclusions.

Happy new year to all!

Dan, you're being way too logical.

[Kunzite]

Who won this time: Pentax or Pentax?

Pentax lost. We lost.
Do you know who won? DPR.

[Larrymc]

Perhaps the solution is for "Purists" to either keep their K-1 or acquire one and not be concerned with the K-1II at all. See how simple that is instead of the 5 or 6 pages of inane discussion about the K-1II and the ability to switch the accelerator chip on and off. Now, before someone reminds me that Pentax is no longer producing the K-1, I know that.

The other solution is to keep on beating that dead horse in the hopes it would sometime soon get up and trot off.

[Dan Rentea]

Pentax lost. We lost.

You lost your camera or the ability to produce good images with K1? If neither of the above are true, then all you lost is time on a topic that is irrelevant for 99,99% of photographers (or clients).

Pentax lost with DPReview article what gained with Imaging Resources article. Canon is loosing on every article written by any reviewer and yet, I don't care because K1/K1 Mark II, D850, A7R III will not change the attitude, the pose, the angle of light on my models. I do that.

Too much drama for such small detail that seems to affect only the ones who view their images at 100%...

[Kunzite]

Dan, that is my point - there's too much drama on something that we can't even agree it is an issue.

I would love if Pentax would be as strong as the #1 (in market share) brand. It isn't. And a bashing treatment by the most popular photo gear site in the western world matters.

Anyway, tomorrow I'll have my first serious photo shooting with the upgraded K-1. Attitude? Pose? I hope the models would be cooperative, or at least be there.