[Merv-O]

As I said earlier, you can denoise a RAW containing only noise to your heart's content, and you won't lose any bit of detail - because no detail is there. You can even paint it black, or pink if that's your favorite color.
I guess what you're against of is losing noise, not detail That explains why you don't like the accelerator!

Kunzite finally distilled the debate to the bottom line: purists will hate the 'denoising' because they are purists, yet they applaud the technological innovations that improve total imagery. The average 24mp image equals or is better than most 35mm film shots taken 50 years ago. The digital camera experience is at the point where if the image is clean and noise free, post-production software (luminar/lightroom, etc.) can really ramp up detail in a RAW image regardless....simply, let's take it down a notch and appreciate the K-1ii for what it is: an evolutionary FF camera that began as a revolutionary product (K-1) for Pentax.

[Kunzite]

You are making the assumption that it is always possible to differentiate between signal and noise.

I'm definitely not making such assumptions.

Sigh. MJKoski didn't like the way his K-1 II images looked like without comparing them to K-1 images.

If you don't see a problem, good for you!
But why do you insist that other people cannot be offended by the "accelerator" processing even if they don't have a reference image to compare to?

I remember MJKoski's dead fur samples; I participated in that thread.
Do you remember how I obliterated most of the difference just by using the same RAW processing settings? All that remained was a debate on slight differences in OOF areas. That thread was a contributing factor on my decision to go with the upgrade.

Why should anyone be offended by something they can't even notice?
Being "offended" is a highly emotional reaction, by the way.

Mind you, I'm not pointing fingers - just stating the fact that people are judging and choosing based on emotions rather than reasoning (not claiming I'm immune - I'm human too).
And the fact that fear of a small loss outweighs a larger gain. Those are well documented behavioral patterns.

So what would potential customers do, when reading post after post after post of this DPReview-esque making a mountain of a molehill? Run away. A completely human, understandable reaction. But not one in their benefit.

[reh321]

I remember MJKoski's dead fur samples; I participated in that thread.
Do you remember how I obliterated most of the difference just by using the same RAW processing settings? All that remained was a debate on slight differences in OOF areas. That thread was a contributing factor on my decision to go with the upgrade.

Yes! As I comment just yesterday on page 41, post #603 {4 pages, 60 comments!}, right now there is an active discussion elsewhere here at PF about the importance of fine-tuning 'raw' developing parameters to get optimal rendition of images.

[robr7]

I typically like these guys but this is a bit of Pentax bashing and I suspect its partially because its become fun to spar with the fanatics who are targeting them.

I get how messing with the RAW output would really rub enthusiasts and professionals the wrong way, it definitely gets a big WTF from me. I don't like they messed with RAW, I don't want two sets of tweaked files. If it is THE reason for claiming its the second worse camera because its such an offense, they should stick to their guns and not wash it down with some BS excuse on how they made the camera worse, its just factually wrong. If you're saying RAW shouldn't be messed with - I accept that as being OBJECTIVE. To discount the extra features you do get because you're upset about it (so no I don't think you can effectively argue the image is worse) it goes beyond being SUBJECTIVE, its BS. They undermined their argument by taking the extra step in their reasoning.

Can anyone recall if they ever declared another make's iterative product "the worst" because they didn't think it was better than its predecessor for one specific reason? I know they've dogged them but have they ever singled them out like this? If not, they need to take this one back.

[beholder3]

Did you mean to continue the sentence and/or point to a chart?
I'd be interested in what you were trying to reference.

I put in pictures from my album here and it seems they only show up if logged into PF.

Did you mean to write "DSLM performance was not much worse..."?

DSLM performance with regards to overheating is much worse than DSLRs, which do not generat as much heat and have more space.

I wouldn't expect a MILC to create a 10°C temperature differential over a DSLR, though.

I just wanted to say that a few degrees can make a difference and DSLM are more likely to get this faster.

Indeed, at least some earlier Sony models were known for not supporting extended video recording as they would shut down due to sensor overheating.

It is documented (The new Sony a7RIII camera still eats stars - Photo Rumors) that even the latest Sonys do eat stars due to their (it seems) constant noise reduction. You could call it "accelerator on steroids" as it obviously works all the time and not only from ISO 640 onwards.

The smaller body design/size of the Sony A7RIII (and other A series cameras) results in a higher internal camera heat level which means in general a more aggressive noise reduction is necessary across the ISO range, but particularly important in the high ISO range and during long exposures because the accumulated effect of the activated sensor causes the heat to skew the signal/noise ratio and produces much noisier images. This is much more evident in higher resolution cameras like the A7R II & III because the more intense data processing generates more heat and the electronics of a higher resolution sensor means more dark noise in the signal/noise ratio. In order to resolve that a more aggressive noise reduction had to be applied at ISOs > 3200 which causes pixel level stars to be wiped. Pixel level doesn't mean actual pixel sized stars, the threshold is actually 4 pixels that make up an RGB block of the Bayer array since color info is needed to make noise reduction adjustment, so stars that are ~4 pixels or smaller are at risk of getting removed.
The phase detect AF sensors built into the imaging sensor generate dark noise in the sensor readout, and that is also especially noticeable at ISOs >3200. In addition, even though the PDAF system is not active during the actual capture of a photo, the electronics are passively in a "standby" mode and that generates additional dark noise. Because of this, the PDAF hot spot areas follow a noise reduction algorithm that is different than the rest of the sensor and accounts for that in order to deliver a smooth gradation and even noise pattern.
I was also told that currently because of the hardware limitations there is no way to resolve the issue and that it is not technically an issue at all, it is just a limitation of the hardware. Any fixes that would be applied via firmware would end up exposing the higher noise, which the engineering team determined would be a worse problem for users so it doesn't seem like a proper solution is in the works.

This does explain the suprisingly much inferior level of details you get to see from Sony cameras like the A7R3 when compared to Pentax and Nikon DSLR.

The Sony video overheating issue is still ongoing:
SONY a7 III a73 OVERHEATING issue: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
A7R III Overheat Issue: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I dont want to see full res image noise after using video. You probably have to not use the camera for 15 minutes at least before you get back average noise /dynamic range performance from a glowing sensor.

[Rondec]

Just to go back to the beginning, DP Review basically thinks that Pentax made an already mediocre camera worse by including the accelerator. Not being a fan of many of the other SLR/MILCs on the market and preferring to shoot still photography, I don't see the K-1 as being a mediocre camera.

As to whether the accelerator makes the K-1 II worse than the K-1, that too is debatable. I suppose that Pentax could release a menu setting that allowed you to turn it off, I just wonder how many people really care about that. I would rather have Pentax focused on the next camera to bring out and next lenses, then messing around with an old-ish design. The real features on the K-1 that need improving are focus tracking and buffer size. And maybe frame rate. Otherwise, I really don't care about all the bells and whistles that are on the newest Sony cameras.

Also, with regard to MJKoski's frustrations with the camera, he was shooting in situations that are pretty far out from where most of us are at. He complained that the camera was having issues when combining a couple of hundred raws in interval composite mode. He was also shooting really long exposures in arctic conditions. He also was complaining about the rear screen when it froze up on him -20 degrees C. Clearly you can use a K-1 in many of these situations, but it is outside of manufacturer's specs and there is no guarantee how well it will perform.

[BigMackCam]

Great post, Vincent

As to whether the accelerator makes the K-1 II worse than the K-1, that too is debatable.

There's no doubt the accelerator's non-optional noise reduction bothers quite a few folks, and on that basis alone, it really should have been made optional. As to how many of those folks it actually affects adversely, we simply don't know - but I would guess it's tiny, and way less than the number who think it might.

I suppose that Pentax could release a menu setting that allowed you to turn it off, I just wonder how many people really care about that.

I've mentioned this before, I think - perhaps more than once - but it's worth rolling out again in the context of this particular thread:

Up until Sony released the A7(x) MkIII series, their earlier DSLR, DSLT and ICLE cameras stored raw files using a lossy compression algorithm. Most of the time, this was fine... and for some time, no-one noticed the effect other than to enjoy the surprisingly economical raw file sizes compared to some other manufacturers' cameras. Then a few folks noticed artefacts in certain situations - e.g. high contrast edges and star trails, and mild banding in graduated colours such as twilight skies. When they posted about these potential issues in forums, it didn't take long for the Sony community to be up in arms about the "problem". Criticism of Sony was vitriolic.

Some time later, Sony released firmware updates for the MkII cameras (and, I believe, the Alpha 6300 / 6500 APS-C - not sure, though) that offered an option to save raw files in non-compressed (and, hence, lossless) format. Initially, everyone was delighted - especially since websites showed that the occasionally-observed artefacts were gone. Then, reality hit that the files were much, much bigger. Anecdotally, a majority of those who had complained about the compression decided that it wasn't such a problem after all, and - despite this new file option being available - stuck with the original lossy compressed algorithm and its smaller file sizes

Full disclosure:

My 24MP Hasselblad HV is a Sony A99 inside, and uses the lossy compression raw algorithm, with no update available. My 24MP A7 MkII came with that same capability, but has been firmware-updated since I bought it to include the uncompressed / lossless option.

I've taken several photos with my HV (a very small proportion overall) where the impact of lossy compression is visible at 100% pixel-peeping reproduction on my old full HD 17" laptop display and 23" external monitor, to a greater or lesser extent. At 50% reproduction, the number of photos where this issue is discernible drops considerably - yet there are a small few where I can still identify the impact... just... if I look for it.

My A7 MkII is now set to use the uncompressed option. The file sizes are very much larger, and I'm not sure the reward is there for my own use cases - yet I keep using that option in case I should lose image information I think I might need... even though the quality of my photos from both the lossy compressed HV and uncompressed A7 MkII - at the reproduction sizes I'm interested in (full screen on a 23 or 24" monitor at close distance) - show no obvious (to me) differences 99.9% of the time.

Final thoughts:

At least Sony offered an option... eventually. And I don't doubt there are a small few for whom that option makes a real and desirable difference. To that end, the option should have been there from the start. Ricoh didn't design the K-1II's accelerator NR to be optional, and that was a mistake. Calling them out on it is justified, yet I believe the number of people objecting to it versus the number of people genuinely (or likely to be) affected by it in their photography is considerably out of kilter. And then there's the benefits it brings.

So, I'm not discounting balanced criticism of Ricoh's approach as worthless or unjustified. But I take issue with the level and relevance of that criticism and it's implications to the majority (rather than the entirity) of the intended user base...

I think a tiny number of those who object to the K-1II's mandatory noise reduction might actually see a tangible adverse effect in their raw files. The vast majority either won't see it, or won't care. All will benefit from slightly lower colour and luminance noise at ISO 640 and above, but especially at 3200 and above where noise reduction probably takes priority over the finest detail in any case.

If a full-frame Pentax DSLR was (or ever is in the near future) on my shopping list, I'd be delighted to pick the K-1II

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-05-2019 at 03:28 PM.

[Rondec]

Great post, Vincent



There's no doubt the accelerator's non-optional noise reduction bothers quite a few folks, and on that basis alone, it really should have been made optional. As to how many of those folks it actually affects adversely, we simply don't know - but I would guess it's tiny, and way less than the number who think it might.



I've mentioned this before, I think - perhaps more than once - but it's worth rolling out again in the context of this particular thread:

Up until Sony released the A7(x) MkIII series, their earlier DSLR, DSLT and ICLE cameras stored raw files using a lossy compression algorithm. Most of the time, this was fine... and for some time, no-one noticed the effect other than to enjoy the surprisingly economical raw file sizes compared to some other manufacturers' cameras. Then a few folks noticed artefacts in certain situations - e.g. high contrast edges and star trails, and mild banding in graduated colours such as twilight skies. When they posted about these potential issues in forums, it didn't take long for the Sony community to be up in arms about the "problem". Criticism of Sony was vitriolic.

Some time later, Sony released firmware updates for the MkII cameras (and, I believe, the Alpha 6500 APS-C - not sure, though) that offered an option to save raw files in non-compressed (and, hence, lossless) format. Initially, everyone was delighted - especially since websites showed that the occasionally-observed artefacts were gone. Then, reality hit that the files were much, much bigger. Anecdotally, a majority of those who had complained about the compression decided that it wasn't such a problem after all, and - despite this new file option being available - stuck with the original lossy compressed algorithm and its smaller file sizes

Full disclosure:

My 24MP Hasselblad HV is a Sony A99 inside, and uses the lossy compression raw algorithm, with no update available. My 24MP A7 MkII came with that same capability, but has been firmware-updated since I bought it to include the uncompressed / lossless option.

I've taken several photos with my HV (a very small proportion overall) where the impact of lossy compression is visible at 100% pixel-peeping reproduction on my old full HD 17" laptop display and 23" external monitor, to a greater or lesser extent. At 50% reproduction, the number of photos where this issue is discernible drops considerably - yet there are a small few where I can still identify the impact... just... if I look for it.

My A7 MkII is now set to use the uncompressed option. The file sizes are very much larger, and I'm not sure the reward is there for my own use cases - yet I keep using that option in case I should lose image information I think I might need... even though the quality of my photos from both the lossy compressed HV and uncompressed A7 MkII - at the reproduction sizes I'm interested in (full screen on a 23 or 24" monitor at close distance) - show no obvious (to me) differences 99.9% of the time.

Final thoughts:

At least Sony offered an option... eventually. And I don't doubt there are a small few for whom that option makes a real and desirable difference. To that end, the option should have been there from the start. Ricoh didn't design the accelerator's NR to be optional, and that was a mistake. Calling them out on it is justified, yet I believe the number of people complaining about it versus the number of people genuinely affected by it in their photography is considerably out of kilter. And then there's the benefits it brings.

So, I'm not discounting criticism of Ricoh's approach as worthless or unjustified. But I might take issue with the level and relevance of that criticism across the majority of the intended user base...

Sure. But, you leave it turned off. You don't turn it on some of the time (say for landscapes) and then turn it off for snapshots. And I think if someone was truly worried about the destruction the accelerator might cause, they would do the same thing. From Pentax's standpoint, that person is better off getting a K-1. That's what I would do. They are four or five hundred dollars cheaper on the used market than the K-1 II is available new.

I don't know how easy it would be to install a off switch in firmware for the accelerator -- probably harder than writing this makes it sound, but that's probably the solution going forward for Pentax, at least on their top end cameras.

[BigMackCam]

Sure. But, you leave it turned off. You don't turn it on some of the time (say for landscapes) and then turn it off for snapshots.

If you're referring to Sony's lossy compressed raw thing that I described, I agree. People either accept it for everything and get on with their shooting, or go with the uncompressed option for everything.

Similarly, if Ricoh were to offer a firmware update that allowed accelerator NR to be engaged or disengaged, I suspect owners would pick one or the other and stick with it, rather than switching between both options.

For the vast majority of folks, my opinion (and it's nothing more than that) is that the accelerator NR engaged option would be the best "fixed" selection for general shooting. I accept there might be a small few who could see minimal benefits from switching it off, but I suspect that number is way lower than those who are up in arms over the mandatory NR...

I think we're largely agreeing, by the way

[Kunzite]

It's interesting that Sony didn't use the obvious (and best) solution, that is, lossless compression.
Perhaps they couldn't (it's embedded programming after all, there are many constraints). Hint, hint

[Rondec]

If you're referring to Sony's lossy compressed raw thing that I described, I agree. People either accept it for everything and get on with their shooting, or go with the uncompressed option for everything.

Similarly, if Ricoh were to offer a firmware update that allowed accelerator NR to be engaged or disengaged, I suspect owners would pick one or the other and stick with it, rather than switching between both options.

For the vast majority of folks, my opinion (and it's nothing more than that) is that the accelerator NR engaged option would be the best "fixed" selection for general shooting. I accept there might be a small few who could see minimal benefits from switching it off, but I suspect that number is way lower than those who are up in arms over the mandatory NR...

I think we're largely agreeing, by the way

We are agreeing. I don't think it's a really big deal either way. As I've said before, I have a K-1 and a K-1 II and I do prefer the K-1 II's output at high iso, but otherwise there isn't a big difference between them.

[kevinWE]

I've read through most of the comments and posted a couple of my own. I understand that we come here because we all enjoy Pentax (Ricoh) cameras. I also understand that most Pentax users are hard-core fans of the brand, and that's great news for Ricoh.

I also enjoy my Pentax gear and standby it through thick and thin. When I voice an opinion that may come across as negative, I do so out of concern with no intent on bashing the brand. I would like to see Ricoh continue well into the future and compete with the big boys.

Reading many of the comments here, I have noticed many opinions based on speculation, hopes and dreams. I like to live in the now and view the facts that are before us. I have stated this already, maybe, not in so many words, but the intent was the same.

Many people (myself included) are waiting for the anniversary releases. We are all hoping for BIG news and great products to be offered,now and in the future. I have my fingers crossed and I am hoping for very exciting news that will help rocket Ricoh into the future as a brand to be reckoned with.

My concern is “What If”? What if the new releases are less than expected? What if there is no definitive news about R&D progress and advancing the brand? What if all the speculation, hopes, and dreams come tumbling down?

Now, being a realist, I can't live my life through speculation, so the “What If's” mean just as little as the speculations of hope.

Let's just wait and see what happens.Then we all can deal in the facts that are presented to us.

[biz-engineer]

A lot of people consider Pentax is slow and other brands are faster to develop new products. It's not quite true. Sony reuse the same bodies between models, and only slightly improved over previous models. Canon offer minor improvement on their 5D series for a long time. Nikon D800 was introduced years ago and the 810 is still for sales. Guys... will have not come down to seeing the reality as it is: a full frame system is expensive and you don't get value for the money by switching from brand to brand, pronsored pros do switch brand Canon to Nikon to Sony to Fuji, but that's because they don't pay gear.

[Merv-O]

A lot of people consider Pentax is slow and other brands are faster to develop new products. It's not quite true. Sony reuse the same bodies between models, and only slightly improved over previous models. Canon offer minor improvement on their 5D series for a long time. Nikon D800 was introduced years ago and the 810 is still for sales. Guys... will have not come down to seeing the reality as it is: a full frame system is expensive and you don't get value for the money by switching from brand to brand, pronsored pros do switch brand Canon to Nikon to Sony to Fuji, but that's because they don't pay gear.

If I'm producing great images, why would I switch? The KP and the K-1 ii are more than adequate for 2019--in fact they are trailblazing in many respects...If the nameplate said CRAPEX and it took great pictures, it was a nice kit, I would like it. This competition of who's the best camera brand is tripe...I still use Leica equipment too...Is it the best? For certain situations it certainly is for me...The image is what pros want, not the brand...

[swanlefitte]

Lol. I had to wait til a k5iis because of the anti-alias filter and now I stick with it because of the accelerator. 😁