Originally posted by Rondec 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.
Originally posted by Rondec 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.
Originally posted by Rondec 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.
Originally posted by Rondec 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.
Originally posted by Rondec 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.