[ThorSanchez]

I'm also against heavy-handed processing (fortunately, the accelerator isn't even close of doing that! No star-eater here...)

But, do we know as a fact that the new "image processing device" is about noise reduction?

The fact that we know nothing about it yet people are complaining - it seems to me, they don't actually care about the end result - the photograph. They're defending a principle. Poorly, as there's no unprocessed RAW

For all we know it could be a frame stacking processor that could result in less noise, but also more detail, more dynamic range by seamlessly combining multiple frames before/during/after the shutter press and spitting out a single RAW file. It could be a way to have a much more advanced version of dynamic pixel shift. Maybe they're running 4k or 8k video and allowing the user to select a number of frames to combine into a high-detail, low-noise still at any time. It could be that there's much tighter integration of sensor, processor, and memory allowing for higher frame rates, or better on-sensor autofocus with different types of tracking. Or seamless in-camera focus-stacking output to a RAW. They could be porting/incorporating Theta code to allow hand-held panorama or photo-sphere generation. There are an awful lot of things a processor could be doing besides single-frame noise reduction.

Or it could just be AI analyzing your photos in realtime and uploading the metadata to the web via a mandatory 4G subscription to facilitate targeted advertising that will appear in the top LCD.

[Rondec]

I'm also against heavy-handed processing (fortunately, the accelerator isn't even close of doing that! No star-eater here...)

But, do we know as a fact that the new "image processing device" is about noise reduction?

The fact that we know nothing about it yet people are complaining - it seems to me, they don't actually care about the end result - the photograph. They're defending a principle. Poorly, as there's no unprocessed RAW

I think we're on the same page. I am more commenting about the past, particularly with the K-1 II (which I purchased), rather than about future cameras. Certainly I doubt they will stick with the original accelerator and could have some other processing techniques they can use a second gen accelerator to do.

[normhead]

Yes but there are many reports of decentered Pentax lenses too - and not just from me (not that I haven't been responsible for quite a few.)

My only decentered lenses are the Sigma 18-250, and the Tamron 17-50, both have which have become un-useable. Meanwhile my original DC motor purchase my 18-135, also my most used lens, just keeps chugging along. Even my older cheap plastic construction lenses still do well. The problem with keeping stats on decentered lenses, is, we have no way of knowing if they were dropped, or in other ways physically impacted. People can swear on a stack of bibles that they were never physically abused, but we don't really know. My DA 18-135 was bought for use on a K20D back when it was the flagship, and it's been lugged all over Algonquin Park.

No one ever said Pentax lenses would stand up to anything they can be subjected to. But from my experience, they hold up better than third party brands. The insinuation that there should be lenses that can stand up to any potential abuse is misleading. People can ruin lenses. But with my Sigma 18-250 and Tamron 17-50, they didn't stand up to the every day use we demand of our lenses. All of our Pentax branded lenses have.

So does one guy claiming he has a lot of Pentax lenses that are decentered mean anything?
I have three questions
Are your testing methods more critical than most peoples? (really critical because in my mind decentered means the lens ruins images taken they way I shoot them, it's not a lab test. If it's not ruining my images I could care less if someone else claims they are decentered.)
Are you shooting wide open with fast lenses, where decentering is going to be more critical than for ƒ8 shooters?
What physical wear are you subjecting those lenses to?

My experience would say it's one of those three or a combination of those three factors..
But that Pentax has problem with lenses becoming decentered is not supported by my experience.
And in no universe would I ever expect no Pentax lenses to ever become decentered. It's about the likely hood of such a thing happening. Unless you're saying Pentax lenses become decentered more than third party lenses or the competitions lenses, I'm not even sure what your point is. And if you think that, I certainly want to know why you think that.

Start with my data....
3 Tamron Lenses - 1 decentered. 66% keeper rate.
4 Sigma lenses, 1 decentered, one failed internally without reason. 50% keeper rate.
15 Pentax lenses - all functional. 2 broken by serious drops. 100% keeper rate without known physical abuse.

With my most used and abused lens ever, the DA 18-135 still functioning perfectly after all these years.

I wonder what kind of difference it would make adding your list of failure to mine. How much would change?
I certainly wonder how as someone who makes full use of Pentax durability, one person could have so many decentered lenses.
And I'd certainly suggest you don't make this kind of statement without some back ground. People like me don't evaluate posters, although some have earned excellent reputations, we evaluate numbers. After all I don't know you from Deputy Dawg.

All I know from your post is some guy says he has a lot of decentered Pentax lenses.
I don't know the "some guy" and I have no idea what his claims actually mean. He could be rock solid, he could be a total flake.
But given my own experience you know which way I'm leaning.

[Larrymc]

monochrome Ricoh/Pentax is doing precisely what they believe they need to do but it doesn't mean it is the right thing.

I'm an end user so I do have the information to instruct Pentax to do it differently.

Actually as an end user what Ricoh/Pentax provides you is the opportunity to purchase the products they produce and nothing else. You as an end user can either purchase what they produce or buy from another producer of similar products. Its as simple as that.

[ThorSanchez]

Actually as an end user what Ricoh/Pentax provides you is the opportunity to purchase the products they produce and nothing else. You as an end user can either purchase what they produce or buy from another producer of similar products. Its as simple as that.

I'd bet that Sears or Woolworths or Macy's would have loved to have a thriving community of tens of thousands of their customers providing constant feedback on their products and potential products 50 years ago. They would have killed for the information they could have culled from their own Pentax Forums.

[normhead]

Actually as an end user what Ricoh/Pentax provides you is the opportunity to purchase the products they produce and nothing else. You as an end user can either purchase what they produce or buy from another producer of similar products. Its as simple as that.

As an end user, I want a 20mm ƒ4 pancake, but don't want it so bad I want Pentax to suffer losses so I can have it.
And I'm not so delusional to believe Pentax can survive as company by producing everything I ask for.
I want a lot of weird $&!#

[photoptimist]

I'd bet that Sears or Woolworths or Macy's would have loved to have a thriving community of tens of thousands of their customers providing constant feedback on their products and potential products 50 years ago. They would have killed for the information they could have culled from their own Pentax Forums.

Maybe, maybe not.

Any feedback from customers must be filtered by those customers' willingness to buy and ability to pay for what they ask for. It's easy for customers to say: I want a compact camera with great AF, great video, fast FPS/Wifi/USB, and lenses that are small, sharp, and bright. But when Ricoh comes back as says, OK, that'll be $3500 for the body and $1,500 for each lens, those offering the feedback suddenly close their wallets.

It's like the sad case of environmentally green products. All the feedback says consumers overwhelmingly claim they want green products. But all the sales data proves consumers overwhelmingly want cheap products.

The only feedback that is actually accurate is product sales.

[Larrymc]

I'd bet that Sears or Woolworths or Macy's would have loved to have a thriving community of tens of thousands of their customers providing constant feedback on their products and potential products 50 years ago. They would have killed for the information they could have culled from their own Pentax Forums.

Well actually they did have that information, it was provided by the sales staff at their stores based on direct customer contact and feedback. Sears, Woolworth and Macy's were retailers and not manufacturers........nope Sears didn't manufacture Craftsman tools. You're not comparing apples to apples, My Friend.

[ThorSanchez]

As an end user, I want a 20mm ƒ4 pancake, but don't want it so bad I want Pentax to suffer losses so I can have it.
And I'm not so delusional to believe Pentax can survive as company by producing everything I ask for.
I want a lot of weird $&!#

Wanting a modernized pancake prime isn't weird at all. It's always been an odd dichotomy that Pentax makes rugged WR bodies and beautiful small primes, but the primes aren't WR.

You can get the 21mm LTD for $400 at B&H. If they made a WR version with a silent focus motor and only charged us a 25% premium over the old model I'd buy one as quickly as I can type in my credit card number. If it was $800 or $1000 I'd have to wait for one to come up on the marketplace.

---------- Post added 03-18-19 at 11:24 AM ----------

Well actually they did have that information, it was provided by the sales staff at their stores based on direct customer contact and feedback. Sears, Woolworth and Macy's were retailers and not manufacturers........nope Sears didn't manufacture Craftsman tools. You're not comparing apples to apples, My Friend.

They did not have anything like the feedback they get from online forums. They had third hand accounts of what customers were willing to talk to sales staff about, if the sales staff relayed that to anyone who mattered. If you'd like you can substitute "Craftsman" for "Sears" in my prior post.

---------- Post added 03-18-19 at 11:36 AM ----------

Maybe, maybe not.

Any feedback from customers must be filtered by those customers' willingness to buy and ability to pay for what they ask for. It's easy for customers to say: I want a compact camera with great AF, great video, fast FPS/Wifi/USB, and lenses that are small, sharp, and bright. But when Ricoh comes back as says, OK, that'll be $3500 for the body and $1,500 for each lens, those offering the feedback suddenly close their wallets.

It's like the sad case of environmentally green products. All the feedback says consumers overwhelmingly claim they want green products. But all the sales data proves consumers overwhelmingly want cheap products.

The only feedback that is actually accurate is product sales.

There's no reason they can't include price data. We're all pretty open about what we're willing to pay for what. This forum should be a huge data source for Ricoh. If it's not I think that's to their detriment.

[rangercarp]

There's no reason they can't include price data. We're all pretty open about what we're willing to pay for what. This forum should be a huge data source for Ricoh. If it's not I think that's to their detriment.

What people SAY they are willing to pay, and what they actually pony up, are often not the same.

[Larrymc]

They did not have anything like the feedback they get from online forums. They had third hand accounts of what customers were willing to talk to sales staff about, if the sales staff relayed that to anyone who mattered. If you'd like you can substitute "Craftsman" for "Sears" in my prior post.

The feed back gotten from online forums consists of about 75% noise from opinionated forum posters, its readily seen here in the "News and Rumors" section. So how would that be useful to Ricoh/Pentax? Maybe R/P should be running off in all directions because somebody with a gripe or a personal opinion expresses it on a forum.

Dude, you are making absolutely no sense at all, have you ever worked for a large retail company like Sears or the others that were mentioned? Do you know for a fact that there was no exchange between the sales staff and the sales management?

As for Craftsman tools they are still rolling along under the Stanley/Black and Decker umbrella.

[ThorSanchez]

What people SAY they are willing to pay, and what they actually pony up, are often not the same.

Can't you look at past data, compare sales to customer feedback and then get a feel for how much customers overstate their willingness to spend?

---------- Post added 03-18-19 at 01:46 PM ----------

The feed back gotten from online forums consists of about 75% noise from opinionated forum posters, its readily seen here in the "News and Rumors" section. So how would that be useful to Ricoh/Pentax? Maybe R/P should be running off in all directions because somebody with a gripe or a personal opinion expresses it on a forum.

Dude, you are making absolutely no sense at all, have you ever worked for a large retail company like Sears or the others that were mentioned? Do you know for a fact that there was no exchange between the sales staff and the sales management?

As for Craftsman tools they are still rolling along under the Stanley/Black and Decker umbrella.

I'm an engineer and we're always looking for better ways to get feedback from end users. We would welcome opinionated folks telling us what's right and what's wrong and what features they want to see. It's often very difficult to get anything.

[BigMackCam]

we're always looking for better ways to get feedback from end users. We would welcome opinionated folks telling us what's right and what's wrong and what features they want to see. It's often very difficult to get anything.

Not here, it ain't!!

[Larrymc]

Not here, it ain't!!

Amen to that!!!

[NZ_Ross]

As an end user, I want a 20mm ƒ4 pancake, but don't want it so bad I want Pentax to suffer losses so I can have it.

Have you looked at the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5. I have one, it is a nice small lens that produces good images. Manual focus of course.