[biz-engineer]

I don't think Ricoh is going to waist money on Pentax. Not in this market.

I'm looking forward to buy a DFA*50 and DFA*85 primes at very cheap prices (the DFA*50 is really outstanding), when some Pentaxians will do panic sales in the market place. I like the soft landing approach of Pentax, Ricoh could have pulled the plug and announced that they stop Pentax cameras, but there didn't do so, spare parts and services are still open, which is great for us customers still using a lot Pentax products. If Ricoh Imaging add new software features to existing camera models (K1, KP) that will be great for both Ricoh (software = no need to finance hardware inventory), and for us customers we can download for a free (like we do when we buy licenses for Raw processing software).

[Kunzite]

Yes. Positive.
I have written software for embedded systems used in industry using low level programming languages including machine code. It doesn't get closer to the hardware than that.


What clackers said: You should trust yourself more than you do.


It is better than having no option at all.

If you feel overwhelmed by the choice, just leave it "On" and pretend you cannot change it (as is now the case with the K-1 II).

Also, "Off" is a really safe choice because if you later realise that you wished you had it on "On", you can fix it in post-processing. There is nothing the K-1 II's "accelerator" unit can do that cannot be accomplished with post-processing. On the contrary, as some forum members have demonstrated, using the right tools you can even go beyond what the image processing of the "accelerator unit" is capable of. If that sounds like too much work, leave the option on "On" and don't look back.

I know a bit of programming myself

I already answered clackers' post. However, the part you're quoting was from Ricoh Imaging's point of view; and in any case, to quote them, "is not just a matter of an on/off switch".

I already made that choice when I sent my K-1 for upgrade.
"Off" is not better than "On", for me and many others. I wasn't impressed by the attempts to lessen the differences using various software - and honestly I don't want to make the effort (nor to pay for extra software).
Then there's the thing with Pentax' cameras high ISO being measured with the accelerator Off because it's "fair" and "RAW" and whatever, while other brands would be measured with their version of the accelerator "On" (simply because there's no other option).
Things are never as easy as at a first, superficial glance

But... haven't we discussed this already?

[biz-engineer]

to quote them, "is not just a matter of an on/off switch".

That's right. I have the K1 and the K1 II. When I want to accelerate, I take the K1 II (honestly, I've never suffered of the K1 II having the accelerator, in practice things like shutter speed relative to subject / camera motion have a much bigger sharpness impact than the acceleration. In fact, since I have the K1II, I cannot believe how much whining/complaining for nothing about this accelerator in the K1II, IMO the complain about the sharpness reduction in the K1II is more about some of the things found in the DSM IV).

[Rondec]

The whole accelerator discussion is hopefully behind us. I have said before, but to me the difference in loss of detail in the real world is such that most people won't notice it. It does allow for a bit more vigorous editing of images at iso 800 than I can do my K-1, as there is less noise in the image, but I don't notice it otherwise. I think for most people, it is beneficial, although I am sure there are people for whom it is probably a terrible thing.

I don't think a simple off/on switch would suffice, but maybe in the future, Pentax can put a setting where you can decide at what iso level it kicks in. I doubt most people would be bothered too much if it kicked in over, say, iso 1600. The biggest reason for the upset was that iso 640 seemed kind of low and unneeded.

[Mistral75]

Today Kimio Tanaka posted what he says are his 'predictions' concerning the other three lenses on the roadmap.

Photo of the Day 3月16日（土）

4. HD PENTAX-D FA★ 85mm F1.4

　とありますがレンズ名は仮称です。
　CP+2019でモックアップが参考出品されてました。レンズ外観デザインや大きさなども決定版ではないとのことですが、おそらくアノ大きさのレンズになるでしょう。大きくて重そうな、そして高そうですが、描写性能にこだわったレンズのようです。
　すでに発売しているD FA★50mmF1.4や、ロードマップにある②のレンズ（たぶんD FA★24mmF1.4）とで、大口径高級単焦点レンズシリーズにするつもりでしょう。
　堂々と参考出品しましたが発売時期は今年は無理で、来年2020年じゅうにはナンとか、という感じです。

The lens name is a tentative name.

The mock-up was exhibited for reference at CP+ 2019. The lens appearance, design and size are not definitive either, but it will probably be a lens of that size. It looks big, heavy and expensive, but it seems to be a lens that focuses on depiction performance.

With the already released D FA★ 50mm F1.4 and the lens #② on the roadmap (possibly D FA★ 24mm F1.4), they intend to make a large-aperture high-quality single-focus lens series.

It made an impressive reference exhibition but it's impossible it will be released this year, it feels like it should be released sometimes in 2020.

5. HD PENTAXｰD FA 70-200mm F4

　ですが、これも仮称です。焦点距離とF値は決定。
　昨年、2018年のロードマップには発売時期が「2019年春」と明記してあったのに、今年のロードマップでは発売時期が消されていました。そりゃあそうでしょう、2019年春といえば、いま、です。レンズの参考出品どころかモックアップもなし。カゲもカタチもなしです。
　コンパクト軽量が特長だそうで、今年春の発売を期待していたズームレンズだったのですが、いつものように約束を破るのがPENTAXの常ですから、ま、しょうがないか。
　発売時期は期待を込めて今年中、2019年末までには、という感じですが意外と早くなるかも。

This is a tentative name too. Focal length and f-number are decided.

Although the 2018 roadmap clearly stated that the release date would be 'Spring 2019', the release date has disappeared from this year's roadmap. Well, I guess, speaking of spring 2019, it's now. There is neither a lens reference exhibition nor a mock-up. There is neither shadow nor shape.

Its features seem to be compactness and lightness. It's a zoom lens that was expected to be released this spring but, since it's usual for Pentax to break a promise, well, it can't be helped.

It is expected to be released this year, by the end of 2019, but it feels like it might be released unexpectedly earlier.

6. Telephoto Zoom Lens

　企画部長の岩崎さんは、何度問い詰めてもハッキリしたことを言いませんでしたが、「D FA 70～300mm」または「D FA 55～300mm」だと思われます。開放F値は不明ですが「F4.5～5.6またはF4.5～6.5」ぐらいでしょうか。
　小型軽量、低価格をコンセプトにした手軽なFA望遠ズームレンズと考えていいでしょう。このテのズームを期待して待っているK-1/K-1 MkIIユーザーも多いはず。
　でも残念ながら発売時期は、再来年の2021年ごろ、かな。可能なら来年じゅうに出して欲しいレンズです。

Mr. Iwasaki, Planning Manager, did not answer clearly when I asked him many times but it seems to be a 'D FA 70-300mm' or a 'D FA 55-300mm'. Although the maximum aperture value is unknown, it should be around f/4.5-5.6 or f/4.5-6.5, shouldn't it?

You can think of it as a handy FA telephoto zoom lens based on the concepts of small size, light weight and low price. There should be many K-1 / K-1 MkII users waiting for this zoom.

But, unfortunately, the release date should be around 2021. If feasible, that's a lens that ought to be released next year.

[reh321]

This market is 1/3th smaller then that (KP time) market. And still shrinking.

Canon and Nikon launched entirely new systems in this market - and Ricoh has already launched three new cameras this year. If you don't want to participate further in this market, you may sell any Pentax equipment you have, and I'm sure someone else will be happy to get joy from it.

[reh321]

I don't hold it against a manager from the product planning department to make such a statement, but it does not make much sense from an engineering point of view.

You are being consistent. This is not the answer you want to hear; from my understanding as a Physics Minor fifty years ago, this is exactly the answer I postulated. It doesn't matter what we think - what matters is what Pentax thinks, and we can react. I am having great fun with my KP, which was their intent - I cannot think of any time I've thought about the 'accelerator' when shooting at ISO=200, nor have I ever missed a detail. For the first time since I picked up a camera over sixty years ago, I can shoot wildlife {I usually use TAv mode} without having an ISO ceiling restricting my actions.

The whole accelerator discussion is hopefully behind us. I have said before, but to me the difference in loss of detail in the real world is such that most people won't notice it. It does allow for a bit more vigorous editing of images at iso 800 than I can do my K-1, as there is less noise in the image, but I don't notice it otherwise. I think for most people, it is beneficial, although I am sure there are people for whom it is probably a terrible thing.

[Larrymc]

The whole accelerator discussion is hopefully behind us.

Nope, we have one member who just can't give it a rest.

[clackers]

IMO the complain about the sharpness reduction in the K1II is more about some of the things found in the DSM IV).

(Laughs)

[normhead]

You are being consistent. This is not the answer you want to hear; from my understanding as a Physics Minor fifty years ago, this is exactly the answer I postulated. It doesn't matter what we think - what matters is what Pentax thinks, and we can react. I am having great fun with my KP, which was their intent - I cannot think of any time I've thought about the 'accelerator' when shooting at ISO=200, nor have I ever missed a detail. For the first time since I picked up a camera over sixty years ago, I can shoot wildlife {I usually use TAv mode} without having an ISO ceiling restricting my actions.

The details that were "missed" when the accelerator was introduced were so ridiculous as to be laugh worthy.

When the D810 came out 36 MP compared to the K-5 16 MP, I looked pretty extensively at IR images. IN some places the K-5 images were better, in some place on the same image the D810 images were better. Others who were actually printing files noticed the same thing, when using independent viewer's evaluations.

24 MP compared to 36 MP doesn't always make a positive difference looking at the whole image, and by picking one area of a photograph over another you can make a case for either being better.

The whole accelerator chip discussion was nonsense from the start, and at best a lesson in how to manipulate tests to make a point. (Hint pick the one part of the photo where the photo is better without the accelerator, ignore the parts where the accelerator does better, and focus only on that.

The funny thing is, since that original completely biased test, not a thing has been added. Using the same methodology, I could have "proved" a 16 MP K-5 is better than a K-1 for IQ.

[reh321]

The details the were "missed" when the accelerator was introduced were so ridiculous as to be laugh worthy.

When the D810 came out 36 MP compared to the K-5 16 MP, I looked pretty extensively at IR images. IN some places the K-5 images were better, in some place on the same image the D810 images were better. Others who were actually printing files noticed the same thing, when using independent viewer's evaluations.

24 MP compared to 36 MP doesn't always make a positive difference looking at whole image, and by picking one area of a photograph over another you can make a case for either bing better.

The whole accelerator chip discussion was nonsense from the start, and at best a lesson in how to manipulate tests to make a point. (Hint pick the one part of the photo where the photo is better without the accelerator, ignore the parts where the accelerator does better, and focus only on that.

The funny thing is, since that original completely biased test, not a thing has been added. Using the same methodology, I could have "proved" a 16 MP K-5 is better than a K-1 for IQ.

I guess some people experience their joy by finding things to complain about.

[normhead]

I guess some people experience their joy by finding things to complain about.

The whole "star eater" thing was the product of some one familiar with the Sony "star eater" problem trying to make a case that Pentax had the same problem <cough> Donkey Pee Rantings <cough>. The whole "shutter shock" issue came from Nikon users, who using an a non-SR sensor can have seriously worse shutter shock than Pentax users. People from other brands just assume the issues they have with other brand's cameras somehow affect Pentax, and most often, it's not the case at all as in the K-1ii being a star eater, or much less of an effect (Pentax shutter shock). The same thing happened with the Nikon sensor stain issue. There were posters here on the forum trying to make out Pentax also had a sensor stain issue. Even thought the sensor mounting apparatus being SR in Pentax and non-SR in Nikon have to be completely different.

You can know too much about other camera systems. The flaws of other manufacturers do not necessarily affect Pentax. Way too often we have shooters who shoot other brands thinking the technical flaws in their other system, apply equally to Pentax.

[ThorSanchez]

If companies are looking for reasons as to why people should be buying real photographic tools rather than relying on computational photography to pretty up the mediocre results of small lenses and small sensors, allowing people to use the tools unimpeded by image processing would be one obvious argument to put forward.

So what happens when the inevitable large-sensor camera with a good lens and cutting edge computational photography comes out? Is that real or fake? Is pixel shift real or fake? Maybe we should come up with a chart of what's acceptable and what's hipster nonsense, so we can all stay real.


Or perhaps the best solution is to quit worrying about what's real and what's fake, stop pixel peeping 36MP images for evidence of very slight blurring at ISOs that were unachievable 10 years ago, and just look for photographs that make you happy.

[normhead]

So what happens when the inevitable large-sensor camera with a good lens and cutting edge computational photography comes out? Is that real or fake? Is pixel shift real or fake? Maybe we should come up with a chart of what's acceptable and what's hipster nonsense, so we can all stay real.


Or perhaps the best solution is to quit worrying about what's real and what's fake, stop pixel peeping 36MP images for evidence of very slight blurring at ISOs that were unachievable 10 years ago, and just look for photographs that make you happy.

+1^ and good enough to get you removed from my ignore list.
You can never have to many people saying "stop fretting, go shoot what's out there with what you have." In many cases it doesn't even matter what you shoot with. You can find a scene so compelling Deputy Dawg could get a great image with his cell phone.

[biz-engineer]

24 MP compared to 36 MP doesn't always make a positive difference looking at whole image, and by picking one area of a photograph over another you can make a case for either being better.

And this is without considering the effect of DoF and diffraction. Landscape is shot at f11, f16 where DoF sharpness range meet diffraction roll-off. The reason why there is no anti-alias filter for those high resolution sensors is because wide DoF involves diffraction, f11 being about the best aperture trade-off between diffraction and DoF. Comparing pixel shift images with the K1 at base ISO, at f4, f5,6 f8, f11, indicates that diffraction is already playing a role at f8. So in order to get the full sharpness on the K1, one must open up the aperture to f4 or f5.6, it mean either shooting wide (with the 15-30), or end-up with a lot of out of focus blur in the frame where more resolution at sensor level is completely useless.