[RobA_Oz]

If the knob is for switching between OVF/LV/Video it would not make much sense to put other option on it too (unless it will have other capturing modes).

In which case, it wouldn’t be operating the same way as the setup on the K-1, ie the knob selects the function and the wheel does the setting.

[Fogel70]

Yes this design is different. It seems you both select and change functions with the wheel, and the SFn button is probably used to switch between selecting the function or changing settings.

[ffking]

This is where we need a Kenspo to throw us another scrap

[Rondec]

Where is the hysterically crying smilie when you need it?

See below why I care.


I'm rather certain the loss in reputation and sales inflicted on the K-1 II by DPReview's take on the matter was all but "academic".

One can debate all day whether DPReview was justified in making a huge deal out of the noise reduction found in raw files but I don't see how anyone could deny that having DPReview slag the K-1 II in the review, deprive it of any recommendation (not even a "bronze" badge), and nominate it as the second worst camera of 2018 (and yes, the noise reduction played a role in that) was damaging to K-1 II sales.

It is just unnecessary to disadvantage your product like that.

We know that DPReview will still whine about the "default JPEG settings" (what a joke), etc. but there is no need to hand them the ammunition on a silver plate.



One can see the loss of detail with one's own eyes. On some images it is hard to see on some images it is rather obvious.

Ricoh is not in possession of any witchcraft that reduces noise without affecting detail. One cannot only measure the attenuation of high spatial frequency at ISO 640 and beyond, it is also visible.

It is another matter how much post-sharpening, etc. can create images that the vast majority of people would prefer over untreated pure raw files (apples to oranges comparison, of course) and I'm not saying the "accelerator" is all evil. All I'm saying is give people who need the original data (e.g., astrophotographers who create deep image stacks) or people who prefer to rely on out-of-camera processing (that will only get better in the future) the chance to access the original data and avoid the denigration of very influential websites at the same time.

I understand the desire for "pure" RAW files. I have not seen any issues with the K-1 II images. If I want maximum detail and dynamic range, of course I use sub-800 iso -- that goes without saying. At higher iso settings, you start to lose detail regardless of accelerators presence or not. I have seen all the comparison images and all I can say is that I can't edit my K-1 iso 6400 images to look as good as my K-1 II images at that iso. You're probably better at these things than I am and don't mind taking the time to do the edits.

As far as building a camera to please DP Review, it is a lost cause. DP review has swung totally towards MILCs. They are going to say that this camera is bulky, that it doesn't have the same range of lenses available for it that other brands have, and that video is poorly implemented. They'll end up saying that they guess it is a reasonable upgrade for folks who own a lot of K mount lenses. On the other hand, they give a free pass to Sony's massaging of RAW files -- whether undefeatable lens adjustments that are baked into RAW, masking to get rid of the PDAF point banding that shows up on backlit photos, or the aggressive long exposure noise reduction that they have used on some cameras.

It definitely seems like a waste of a control element that could be put to better use.

It is not just a matter of adding further options to the dial so either, as Sandy Hancock said, the control is designed to support operation while wearing gloves, or the production camera will reveal a different use of the dial.


Could this not also have been achieved using a secondary ring below the selection dial (like on the KP or K-1 (II))?
Wouldn't such a ring be usable with gloves as well?


That would work but is not quite as good as having all options available on a dial because even though access is sequential for both controls, the dial immediately tells you how far away from the target you are and also gives you feedback about the setting even when the camera is turned off.

Of course more options could be covered with a knob+soft-dial approach as opposed to the limited space on a dial. However, there is clearly a limit to the number of options one can support this way as well because access times should be reasonable.

Note that, ideally, the top LCD would have to support the S.fn options approach. This wouldn't be feasible with a standard segment LCD. Just providing feedback on the back LCD wouldn't be a good idea because it should be possible to have the latter turned off, except when reviewing images or deliberately using menus.

The switch on the K-1 isn't easily used with any kind of bulky glove. This knob will be easier. Most of the buttons and dials on the K-1 are pretty easy to use while wearing gloves, but that particular one isn't great.

[sbh]

I’m not quite convinced that the screen isn’t flippy because of the little indentation below the lower right corner of the screen. It looks to me like an access point to pull out the screen, a thinner version than the KP. ...

That's what I thought as well. But it just looks like such from that angle. Look at it from a different angel and you'll see that it isn't a handle to pull it out.

Not saying it’s not useful, just it looks like an afterthought being positioned there.

It would be bold (some people are very passionate about such things) but do we really need a top calculator LCD screen anymore?

The 80's calculator screen I don't use. Just because it's so hard to see and read if there is a large screen on the back displaying it much better.

However, with a fixed back screen, a larger top screen makes sense when the back screen is hard to access.

It would be great if it was an actual pixel display instead of that calculator style.

[PJ1]

it isn't a handle to pull it out.

No. I suspect it is the point where you push to eject the screen. There is a raft of design evidence that points to this being some kind of movable screen. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it is a fixed screen - except that some have said they haven't seen one like that before. Well, there is a first time for everything and I am sure we will know by February, if not before.

[slartibartfast01]

No. I suspect it is the point where you push to eject the screen. There is a raft of design evidence that points to this being some kind of movable screen.

Can you remind us what this "raft of evidence" is?

[ffking]

There is a raft of design evidence that points to this being some kind of movable screen. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it is a fixed screen - except that some have said they haven't seen one like that before

I think that this is an exaggeration - to me, the only suggestion that the screen is moveable is the slight gap around the glass compared to the K-3, for instance - but this is also evidence against, as it would mean that there was no cradle to hold or protect a moveable screen. I don't think the screen shown in (all) the images available moves, though I'd prefer it if it did.

[PJ1]

Can you remind us what this "raft of evidence" is?

Certainly. There is that little notch at the bottom right. The base plate has been deliberately shaped to accommodate (and extend) it. That didn't happen by accident. If you enlarge the image of the rear camera shot, you can see a gap all round the screen and, again, if you look where the notch is, that gap seems to go in under the screen. Why design a screen that is separated from the body by some kind of gap when it would be easer to finish the screen flush with the back of the camera (as with all other fixed screen cameras, I believe)? The gap is not there to collect rainwater, or crud, and cause endless problems for Pentax. I think it is fair to conclude that the gap separates the screen from the body. Finally, there is a wider margin around the screen on the left than on the right. Why? Is that where some kind of connecting mechanism is? Does it cover the battery for an OLED? These things are aspects of design and they are there for a reason. I have given possible reasons.

The only "evidence" I have seen for a fixed screen is the argument that no one has seem a movable screen like that before. And that is no evidence at all.

As I have said, the design is there for a reason. Some kind of movable screen provides a possible explanation. But I am willing to consider other possible explanations for those design points. I suspect that this is a camera that is fairly close to release and they are not "mistakes" or just rough bits of a mock up.

Personally I could not care less whether the screen is movable or not. My K-3 is all I need and is likely to remain so for the forseeable future.

[bxf]

Certainly...

Time will tell whether or not you're right, but you get a "Like" for presenting a good case

[jcleary47]

I'd say AF improvement and low-light improvement would get me to move to this new camera in a heartbeat. I find I'm photographing a lot more of my kids and sports and while I've been able to adjust my technique and get better through those means, (plus picking up the 55-300 PLM lens), if the camera can do more to help me out in the AF department that would be a huge, huge plus for me.

I'm excited for this camera and what it might have to offer, even though we can't really be 100% sure of anything just yet.

[Fogel70]

Certainly. There is that little notch at the bottom right. The base plate has been deliberately shaped to accommodate (and extend) it. That didn't happen by accident. If you enlarge the image of the rear camera shot, you can see a gap all round the screen and, again, if you look where the notch is, that gap seems to go in under the screen. Why design a screen that is separated from the body by some kind of gap when it would be easer to finish the screen flush with the back of the camera (as with all other fixed screen cameras, I believe)? The gap is not there to collect rainwater, or crud, and cause endless problems for Pentax. I think it is fair to conclude that the gap separates the screen from the body. Finally, there is a wider margin around the screen on the left than on the right. Why? Is that where some kind of connecting mechanism is? Does it cover the battery for an OLED? These things are aspects of design and they are there for a reason. I have given possible reasons.

The only "evidence" I have seen for a fixed screen is the argument that no one has seem a movable screen like that before. And that is no evidence at all.

As I have said, the design is there for a reason. Some kind of movable screen provides a possible explanation. But I am willing to consider other possible explanations for those design points. I suspect that this is a camera that is fairly close to release and they are not "mistakes" or just rough bits of a mock up.

Personally I could not care less whether the screen is movable or not. My K-3 is all I need and is likely to remain so for the forseeable future.

But there is no notch, quite the opposite as back panel is curved and the screen becomes more recessed on the far right side.
It is just the lighting on the first images makes it difficult to see this curve on the back.

Have you checked these images?
New K-series DSLR under development to be exhibited - Page 32 - PentaxForums.com

[Larrymc]

Below is the "original" (lifted from the Ricoh Imaging, Japan Web site):



The two photos at the beginning of this thread appear to be large versions of the image above and the same as the crops posted by Tanaka-san on his Twitter account. I gave them both careful evaluation and feel they are of the same camera with identical prism housing details. (Hint: the two views were taken from different angles and distances.)


Steve

Agreed!

[Larrymc]

Not saying it’s not useful, just it looks like an afterthought being positioned there.

It would be bold (some people are very passionate about such things) but do we really need a top calculator LCD screen anymore?

Why yes we do. Whats wrong with it, especially since we really don't know what information it will display?

[phoebus]

But there is no notch, quite the opposite as back panel is curved and the screen becomes more recessed on the far right side.
It is just the lighting on the first images makes it difficult to see this curve on the back.
...

I think the point being made is that it appears that there is not a continuous surface line between the screen and the rest of the back-plate. Also why would such a discontinuity be designed on the right side? Surely a smooth 'S' contour would catch less debris. One plausible reason is that the screen is moveable, and the stowed position is flush where it can be - the bevelled right side might help the screen stow cleanly. The screen seems to have the same layout as that on the GRiii, with a thicker band on one side - as I pointed out with photos earlier in this thread.