[Class A]

Any circumstance where your images are made noticeably worse - and not improved - by this accelerator are extraordinary.

Not when taking the superficial view that "starting with ISO 640, there will be loss of detail in raw files". There is nothing extraordinary about "ISO 640 and above". We all know that DPReview exaggerated enormously and that they are not using the same measuring stick for all brands, but technically their statement is not incorrect.

Pentax' only fault was to release a camera in two versions, with and without the accelerator.

It took someone outside DPReview's staff to recognise the raw manipulation in an objective manner but the respective demonstration does not require a "before" (K-1) and "after" (K-1 II) comparison. You can tell by looking at the K-1 II in isolation that image processing is being performed.

Arguably, you could also say that a further "faults" according to DPReview were to release the K-1 II with so few differences to the K-1 and that one of the differences was step back (mandatory noise reduction), the other was pointless (hand-held PixelShift), and the third one rather minor (better AF-C performance). DPReview actually used the fact that a K-1 could be upgraded to a K-1 II as an argument against the K-1 II in the sense that it shouldn't be so easy to turn an older model into a new one.

I'm not defending them, far from it! All I'm trying to illustrate is the broad attack surface Ricoh provided. We know that DPReview will find a way to wax lyrical about their Sonys and Fujis and explain with loaded language how DSLRs are not contemporary anymore, no matter what Ricoh does. However, I still think it makes a difference of how easy one makes it for them.

[biz-engineer]

It's sickening.

Online reviews are like fishing nets, customer being the fish Doesn't matter, once the sale is made, it's made, that's the goal. The best guess you can make yourself is to read many comments from customers who actually bought the product and make your mind about it (hoping that most comments aren't manipulated by the seller).

[monochrome]

The “someone outside DPReview’s staff” is a theoretical mathematician who has made a side hustle consulting on computational photography. His “chart” wasn’t objective in the sense that it was based on observable reality. Rather it was theoretical, in the sense that if the Accelerator does what Ricoh says it does, here is what (he computes) the loss of raw detail would be.

It is ALL supposition cloaked in supposed expertise that simply cannot be objectively resolved. Ricoh was found guilty before they were tried, and cannot be expected to know in advance to defend their decision.

As such DPR committed borderline fraud, posting an opinion as fact, as if based on settled science.

Not when taking the superficial view that "starting with ISO 640, there will be loss of detail in raw files". There is nothing extraordinary about "ISO 640 and above". We all know that DPReview exaggerated enormously and that they are not using the same measuring stick for all brands, but technically their statement is not incorrect.


It took someone outside DPReview's staff to recognise the raw manipulation in an objective manner but the respective demonstration does not require a "before" (K-1) and "after" (K-1 II) comparison. You can tell by looking at the K-1 II in isolation that image processing is being performed.

Arguably, you could also say that a further "faults" according to DPReview were to release the K-1 II with so few differences to the K-1 and that one of the differences was step back (mandatory noise reduction), the other was pointless (hand-held PixelShift), and the third one rather minor (better AF-C performance). DPReview actually used the fact that a K-1 could be upgraded to a K-1 II as an argument against the K-1 II in the sense that it shouldn't be so easy to turn an older model into a new one.

I'm not defending them, far from it! All I'm trying to illustrate is the broad attack surface Ricoh provided. We know that DPReview will find a way to wax lyrical about their Sonys and Fujis and explain with loaded language how DSLRs are not contemporary anymore, no matter what Ricoh does. However, I still think it makes a difference of how easy one makes it for them.

[stillshot2]

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.

The "calculator screen" works great for me, and they use little to no battery. I can guarantee the reverse display you posted would be much harder to see in bright light, and would waste a lot more battery after having to crank up the brightness.

[stevebrot]

My family had several Canons with an articulating screen, and we never did break one.

Just for balance, I have owned one Canon and it had an articulating screen and that screen failed at about a year and was replaced under warranty by Canon.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I'd guess it will launch at $1,300 - 1,400 (body only), settling down to a street price of around $1,200 once initial demand slows.

That is my anticipation as well, based entirely on market segment.


Steve

[house]

The “someone outside DPReview’s staff” is a theoretical mathematician who has made a side hustle consulting on computational photography. His “chart” wasn’t objective in the sense that it was based on observable reality. Rather it was theoretical, in the sense that if the Accelerator does what Ricoh says it does, here is what (he computes) the loss of raw detail would be.

It is ALL supposition cloaked in supposed expertise that simply cannot be objectively resolved. Ricoh was found guilty before they were tried, and cannot be expected to know in advance to defend their decision.

As such DPR committed borderline fraud, posting an opinion as fact, as if based on settled science.

If you are referring to photons to photons you are entirely wrong about the methodology used.

[Doundounba]

Well, FWIW, fixed screen would be quite a bummer for me. I mean, I've been living without one for years shooting a K-3, but that is a constant point of irritation and I've been wishing for an a top-end APS-C body with a K-1 style hinged screen for a long time. Of course, no camera is perfect, but if this comes out with fixed screen, I'll have to choose between KP with small buffer and weak battery or this new cam with a fixed screen. Gah.

[luftfluss]

Well, FWIW, fixed screen would be quite a bummer for me. I mean, I've been living without one for years shooting a K-3, but that is a constant point of irritation and I've been wishing for an a top-end APS-C body with a K-1 style hinged screen for a long time. Of course, no camera is perfect, but if this comes out with fixed screen, I'll have to choose between KP with small buffer and weak battery or this new cam with a fixed screen. Gah.

How about a KP + battery grip? Won't help the buffer situation, but you'll get much longer battery life.

[stevebrot]

If you are referring to photons to photons you are entirely wrong about the methodology used.

Nobody really knows what is methods are, only that they are based on analysis of capture data from the RAW files* and that he has created indices for comparison. In case it is not clear, working from capture data means that all declarations regarding post-capture pipeline processing are inferred, rather than strictly data-based measured.


Steve

* Reader contributed and taken under prescribed conditions, presumably to control for variation of shutter, aperture, spectral composition, and subject illuminance.

[derekkite]

At best the screen looks unfinished. Looking at all the photos the amount it is set into the back varies across all four sides. It looks unfinished in a way that the rest of the body doesn't. I don't know what that means.

[luftfluss]

At best the screen looks unfinished. Looking at all the photos the amount it is set into the back varies across all four sides. It looks unfinished in a way that the rest of the body doesn't. I don't know what that means.

It means months of speculation by us!

[c.a.m]

At best the screen looks unfinished. Looking at all the photos the amount it is set into the back varies across all four sides. It looks unfinished in a way that the rest of the body doesn't. I don't know what that means.

I noticed that too -- maybe some parts were assembled by hand, or the assembly jig was not adjusted.

Perhaps Ricoh will be introducing the world's first DSLR in kit form, sort of like Heathkit of years ago.

- Craig

[house]

Nobody really knows what is methods are, only that they are based on analysis of capture data from the RAW files* and that he has created indices for comparison. In case it is not clear, working from capture data means that all declarations regarding post-capture processing are inferred, rather than measured.


Steve

* Reader contributed and taken under prescribed conditions, presumably to control for variation of shutter, aperture, spectral composition, and subject illuminance.

He works with raws basically using known algorithms to statistically detect patterns. Some of these patterns tell of what algos have manipulated the data. The image manipulation algos aren't perfect so leave traces or errors/artifacts that act as fingerprints.

I can't see how your capture, post capture dicotomy is relevant. A raw file is post capture data, it has passed though the camera pipeline.

[BigMackCam]

Absolutely no one knows what are the key features about this camera and you (the Pentax community) speculate about the price!

I was merely responding to another member's view on possible pricing and request for predictions. I based my guess (because that's all it is) on where I think a high end APS-C model would need to be priced, given the existence of both the KP and K-1II. No offence intended, or - so far as I can tell - harm done