[RGlasel]

4. It is obvious to me that Pentax cameras are designed by engineers, not marketers. Any marketer worth her salt knows that you can't force users to do something because it is good for them, you have to offer a choice so the user believes they are making the best choice, even if the choices provided are constructed so the best choice is painfully obvious. After all, why have an "M" mode on cameras with 86,000 segment metering? I'm a marketer, not an engineer, if I had designed the K-1 II, not only would you be able to switch off the accelerator chip, I would have told the engineers to program A/B comparisons in LiveView that make non-accelerated photography look like the worst crap ever to come out of a Polaroid camera.

Read more at: K-1II review... Opportunity to get banned on DPR - Page 16 - PentaxForums.com

It's deja vu all over again. BigMackCam did an excellent job of running an ad hoc test at that time, bdery did a very thorough test of the K-1II for this site's home page, the only logical conclusion is that the accelerator provides benefits in some situations without compromising the resulting photograph in any situation. But perception is reality, as photographers we should be more aware of that than anyone else.

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.

Sometimes, reading between the lines is quite easy. "Neither shadow nor shape," but "it feels like it might be released unexpectedly earlier." In other words, Tanaka has had his hands on a working copy of the f4 70-200, so delaying the release of this lens is a financial decision.

[monochrome]

This is obviously self-contradictory, unless you are talking about images taken at f/5.6 or f/8.

The FA 50/1.4, for instance, has glaringly obvious optical weaknesses, so if the HD D-FA* has "little to no optical weaknesses" than it must be "THAT much better".
I love the FA 43/1.9 Ltd but it too has obvious optical weaknesses unless one stops it down quite a bit. Even the FA 77/1.8 Ltd is not free of problems.

I very much appreciate all three film-era Limited lenses, use them frequently, and think they are a great asset of the Pentax system, but AFAIC is it is clear as day that a modern lens like the HD D-FA* 50/1.4 which was optimised for IQ with pretty much no regard for size and weight, is "THAT much better" when shooting wide open or very large apertures. I can see that even in web-sized images. Not sure why you cannot.

I can think of a better person than a designer to decide when it's off and on. The person taking the picture!

Bring on a menu item. It already has on/off behaviour, it only kicks in from ISO 400 onwards.

The response feels to me as if the Accelerator handles some undocumented tasks unrelated to noise reduction.

[RGlasel]

The response feels to me as if the Accelerator handles some undocumented tasks unrelated to noise reduction.

Some members here have commented that tracking AF seems improved on the K-1II and I seem to recall similar information from one of the PF interviews.

[monochrome]

It's deja vu all over again. BigMackCam did an excellent job of running an ad hoc test at that time, bdery did a very thorough test of the K-1II for this site's home page, the only logical conclusion is that the accelerator provides benefits in some situations without compromising the resulting photograph in any situation. But perception is reality, as photographers we should be more aware of that than anyone else.


Sometimes, reading between the lines is quite easy. "Neither shadow nor shape," but "it feels like it might be released unexpectedly earlier." In other words, Tanaka has had his hands on a working copy of the f4 70-200, so delaying the release of this lens is a financial decision.

Or a tactical decision related to another ‘product’, or the start of Centenary Events. Or both, since they are one and the same.

[reh321]

The response feels to me as if the Accelerator handles some undocumented tasks unrelated to noise reduction.

People have made " 'accelerator' turned on at 640 ISO" statements based on what they detect in noise reduction. I know it also enhances Dynamic Range, Color Depth {and perhaps other aspects of color fidelity}; we don't know what other aspects of actual photos it enhances, so we have no way of detecting actual on/off, nor do we know the "pin out" {what data / control info is passed to/from it}. In short, we know very little about it, so to proclaim what could be changed about how it is used is being rather egotistical; I will trust words from Pentax long before I will trust words from self-proclaimed outside experts. I am quite sure Pentax put a lot of effort into this device; they are rightfully proud of it, and I can understand why they aren't interested in changing it right now.

[photoptimist]

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.

...

I can somewhat imagine that implementing an "off"-switch for the "accelerator" unit in the K-1 II via a firmware upgrade might not be entirely possible (surely reducing its effect to almost neutral should be), but I can absolutely not imagine that future in-camera image processing cannot be designed to behave neutrally, if so desired by a photographer.

It all depends on how much of the accelerator processing is done in firmware versus hardware. If the accelerator is code compiled into ASIC silicon, there may be no way to turn it off or turn it down without replacing the chip.

I would bet that Pentax was quite surprised by all the cries to "turn off the accelerator" in the spring of 2018 given that the accelerator had been in use for nearly 2 years on the K-70 and KP with no such outbursts.

[Rondec]

Well, the accelerator only sort of improves dynamic range at iso 800. It lets you push shadows harder without noise purely because it is doing some noise reduction behind the scenes. We all know that there is no free lunch. Any noise reduction by definition will reduce detail as well, at least a tiny bit. The question is more of benefit versus cost. I think most people if given the choice would be OK with the cost. I know that with my noise reduction skills, I would wipe way more detail out than the accelerator does, but there are others who differ.

And that's OK too.

[Mistral75]

Would it be possible that people stop hijacking this thread with discussions about the accelerator unit?

[beholder3]

Right. Lets come back to equivalency. All those lenses could be made with mft as well.

300 posts later...

The original point of this thread was to hear again how secondary low res mini screens (EVF) are missing. And touchscreens. And Hello Kitty designs. And 50k video. And cheap 2000mm F1.4 lenses.

[biz-engineer]

Regarding the wide angle lens, I would prefer a 20mm f4, because the DFA 24-70 already does 24mm, and the DFA 15-30 f2.8 is too large to carry around. On the other hand, good choice of primes comes with doubles: 25mm => 50mm -> 100mm. Personally, I'd prefer 20mm, 40mm and 85mm. I'll skip the 50. Give me a 20mm f4 and 85 1.4.

[monochrome]

It all depends on how much of the accelerator processing is done in firmware versus hardware. If the accelerator is code compiled into ASIC silicon, there may be no way to turn it off or turn it down without replacing the chip.

I would bet that Pentax was quite surprised by all the cries to "turn off the accelerator" in the spring of 2018 given that the accelerator had been in use for nearly 2 years on the K-70 and KP with no such outbursts.

That other review site was quite positive about the performance of the KP and K-70. IMO they are active, paid saboteurs.

[reh321]

Would it be possible that people stop hijacking this thread with discussions about the accelerator unit?

Before the K-1ii, virtually everyone was ignoring the 'accelerator';
now that they finally understand {partially} what it does, people have to talk it to death on every occasion.

I see nothing 'exotic' about it - I just use it.

[Kunzite]

Before the K-1ii, virtually everyone was ignoring the 'accelerator';
now that they finally understand {partially} what it does, people have to talk it to death on every occasion.

I see nothing 'exotic' about it - I just use it.

I'd say... before, people could see only the results - and they were fine with it.
Now they've heard it does some noise reduction and just can't stand the idea.

[xmeda]

At least they started to listen a bit!

24/1.4 is one of key lenses for usable FF system, while 85/1.4 is pretty specific portrait lens and we already have 77/1.8 and 70/2.4, while there is nothing available on the wide part of range.. 20, 24, 28, ony FA31/1.8Ltd and then mediocre 35/2.. or the tamron zoom 24-70/2.8 which is not bad, but still just F2.8 tamron zoom.. nothing to write home about and nothing to attract users who can buy original tamron 24-70/2.8 for other systems cheaper.

35/1.4.. at least we still have Sigma 35/1.4 Art, so this focal length is not the most painful. But in future this should be covered by some DFA*35/1.4 too..



DFA 70-300 is obvious, but it will be cute to prepare one lens for both FF and APS-C.. some 60-300 or 55-300. Then they can remove all 55-300 models and use the same production resources.

70-200/4 again.. lets do it a bit wider to fit both customer camps... 60-200/4 will be better and nobody else has lens like that. DA*60-250/4 was pretty interesting lens.. that design can be modified to fit FF camera and then it would again be something special that others do not have... DFA*60-250/4.. why not? Put a reliable motor inside, keep competitive price and you'll see results quickly.

Ricoh should try to offer options that others do not have to attract some newcomers. If they just copy what canon, nikon and Sony already have, then there is no way, that customers would switch..


Concerning DA*16-50/2.8 successor.. I'm asking for such lens for several years. Current DA*16-50 is just overpriced mediocre lens. Sig 17-50/2-8 is optically better and cost 1/3. But if they manage to redesign it into DA*11-18/2.8 level optically, I would buy that and keep sigma for backup camera. That focal range is very important if they want to offer some hi-end APS-C cameras.
Lets hope it would be something better than just DA*16-50/2.8 with HD coating... if it takes few years to develop it, they hopefuly are working on optical redesign too

[Class A]

It all depends on how much of the accelerator processing is done in firmware versus hardware.

That's why I indicated that an "off" switch may not be on the cards for the K-1 II.

However, given that the "accelerator" unit works at different strength levels, it should be possible to minimise its effect, if not even choose parameters that make it completely neutral. Often image processing operations have parameter values that turn them into the identify function.

I would bet that Pentax was quite surprised by all the cries to "turn off the accelerator" in the spring of 2018 given that the accelerator had been in use for nearly 2 years on the K-70 and KP with no such outbursts.

In case you want to suggest that any problem related to the "accelerator" unit is imagined just because it had been deployed early but went undetected, the only real take aways from this fact are

• DPReview are obviously inconsistent in their testing. Sometimes they pick up things, sometimes they don't. FWIW, almost always they do a disservice to Pentax by exaggerating matters out of proportion or not appreciating features at the time Pentax introduces them only to warm up to them when others copy them.
• some people capable of detecting the image processing performed by the "accelerator" unit were not interested in cameras like the KP and K-70.
• it is possible for people to enjoy a KP and a K-70 with an operational "accelerator" unit. This has virtually no implications, though, whether the K-1 II should have received the same processor and/or whether the feature should be optional in future Pentax cameras.