[MarkJerling]

Just don't mention the Canon EOS RP with K mount adapter full frame mirrorless elephant in the comer of the room.

Spend a day behind that viewfinder and get back to me after.

[stevebrot]

Spend a day behind that viewfinder and get back to me after.

The acid test for any prospective mirrorless owner.


Steve

[MikeyBugs95]

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.

Here's something I posted on that other forum site:

In the interest of stirring the pot and raising speculation... I'd propose that it actually is possible that the engineers at Ricoh are using an articulating display with this camera. It's entirely possible that the display we see in the pictures is a dud and instead is just meant to cover up the cutout in the body where an articulating or tilting mechanism could reside. The actual display would not be flush but would protrude outwards from the body, potentially out as far the d-pad surface. Something similar to the Olympus OM-D E-M5 display. This way, the display could occupy that same cavity, while also being constructed and implemented in such a way that benefits usability, durability and reliability. It would be quite bold of the engineers and reps to use such a diversion but if they wanted to hide that feature and surprise us later, it would certainly work.

[Zephos]

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.

Many people have looked at the images and fallen for the optical illusion, but there is no notch at the bottom right of the screen. Look at the other angles, specifically the photos from above, to see the truth. It is merely the bezel curving up, just like it does on the top corner, but you can't see the inside of the curve on the top because of the angle.

[MarkJerling]

Here's something I posted on that other forum site:

In the interest of stirring the pot and raising speculation... I'd propose that it actually is possible that the engineers at Ricoh are using an articulating display with this camera. It's entirely possible that the display we see in the pictures is a dud and instead is just meant to cover up the cutout in the body where an articulating or tilting mechanism could reside. The actual display would not be flush but would protrude outwards from the body, potentially out as far the d-pad surface. Something similar to the Olympus OM-D E-M5 display. This way, the display could occupy that same cavity, while also being constructed and implemented in such a way that benefits usability, durability and reliability. It would be quite bold of the engineers and reps to use such a diversion but if they wanted to hide that feature and surprise us later, it would certainly work.

Considering how the K-1's alloy body has the casting for the screen system integrated, i would consider it unlikely that the screen we see on the prototype is some kind of "dud", as I would imagine that the casting for this camera would need to accommodate a swivel or K-1 style "moon-lander" mechanism and, what we're seeing is that it's simply not there. Here's the K-1's casting:



But then, looking at the KP's casting, maybe you're right - it has a much "flatter appearance than that of the K-1.



I do wonder why they would not incorporate a tilt screen of some sort.

[MikeyBugs95]

Considering how the K-1's alloy body has the casting for the screen system integrated, i would consider it unlikely that the screen we see on the prototype is some kind of "dud", as I would imagine that the casting for this camera would need to accommodate a swivel or K-1 style "moon-lander" mechanism and, what we're seeing is that it's simply not there. Here's the K-1's casting:



But then, looking at the KP's casting, maybe you're right - it has a much "flatter appearance than that of the K-1.



I do wonder why they would not incorporate a tilt screen of some sort.

In a way that's sort of what I'm saying, but not really. I omitted the rest of the post but the rest I was saying about how improbable it is that the new camera would include a moveable LCD. I'm squarely in the "I would like a moveable LCD but I highly doubt that they will include it but my opinion of the camera is unaffected regardless of whether they use a moveable LCD or not." Honestly, it's entirely possible that this little screen is just a ruse to keep us from seeing a cutout for a tilting LCD mechanism that Ricoh isn't quite ready to show off yet. But I doubt it. It's Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simplest explanation in this case being a fixed LCD. I would be pleasantly surprised they announce this camera as having a tilting display and even more surprised if it had an articulated display.

[wed7]

Quite possibly. I'll admit I could readily live without the top LCD though it is awfully handy in some situations, principally shooting at night or in
the dark. I don't own any cameras with flippy screens but can definitely see the use. I'm doing lots of product work at the moment and a flippy
screen would come in handy with the camera on a tripod and at waist level.

I now a have camera with a flippy screen, for my use case, it way better than to have the top lcd screen at all times. My muscle memory is still in top shape. lol

Even the K-1, their sole FF DSLR, has the lunar landing for Pete's sake.

[MarkJerling]

In a way that's sort of what I'm saying, but not really. I omitted the rest of the post but the rest I was saying about how improbable it is that the new camera would include a moveable LCD. I'm squarely in the "I would like a moveable LCD but I highly doubt that they will include it but my opinion of the camera is unaffected regardless of whether they use a moveable LCD or not." Honestly, it's entirely possible that this little screen is just a ruse to keep us from seeing a cutout for a tilting LCD mechanism that Ricoh isn't quite ready to show off yet. But I doubt it. It's Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simplest explanation in this case being a fixed LCD. I would be pleasantly surprised they announce this camera as having a tilting display and even more surprised if it had an articulated display.

Aha, thanks! I misunderstood you, sorry!

[alfa75ts]

There is no notch!

It is merely the bezel curving up, just like it does on the top corner, but you can't see the inside of the curve on the top because of the angle.

I fully agree, but all the shots are a bit soft in that area so it can be hard to see.

If you look at the screen you can see that the top, left and bottom sides are on the same plane.
You can also see that there is a transition in the top right corner from this plane to the raised area around the switches. The area remains raised for the full height of the screen.

Given the above, there must be another transition from the screen plane to the raised area around the switches at the bottom right of the screen.

[PJ1]

Many people have looked at the images and fallen for the optical illusion, but there is no notch at the bottom right of the screen

We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

[Class A]

Not sure if any DSLR maker has offered eye AF in optical viewfinder mode?

I don't think any DSLR ever offered that feature.

I think something similar (say "face detect") might be possible by using an advanced metering chip (high resolution and respective processing power behind it).
A hybrid-DSLR (with a hybrid-viewfinder that allows it to be used as a MILC whenever you want) would also be able to offer eye-AF (when using EVF-mode).

Eye AF is a major industry feature these days, as are good video capabilities as well. It’s going to be harder to score review points without these capabilities.

Agreed.

I personally don't agree with single review scores that incorporate video capabilities. The whole "single score" concept is flawed as every user has different needs and no one weighting of all the aspects of a camera works perfectly for all potential customers. Hence in my view, at the very least, there should be two separate scores for "stills" vs "video" performance.

I'm not sure about eye-AF. I fully agree that it should be mentioned as a plus for a camera that has it. On the other hand, from what I've read it does not always work well enough to fully rely on it. I'm convinced there are people who would not use it, regardless of whether their camera provides it or not. For this reason, I would be against a camera losing a lot of points because it does not offer that feature. Anyone using a camera primarily for capturing landscapes certainly wouldn't miss it. There is also the question where the insistence on convenience features ends. By what date will a camera be expected to support "animal eye detect" for a large class of animals to avoid losing a significant amount of points?

However, the reality, as you say, will most likely that DPReview will penalise non-eye-AF cameras in the future. Amazon has shelfloads of MILC cameras and in particular MILC lenses to sell so their "millenial disinformation commerce site" (Kirk Tuck) better keep the fire going.

Marketing wise, regardless of the legitimacy, a good DPReview show/review is important. As you say, many new buyers are going to head there for information to support their purchase decisions.

Thank you very much for acknowledging the potential damage bad DPReview reviews can cause. With ~20,000,000 hits per month, the content on their website is not "meaningless" but rather has the potential of being rather consequential.

[Class A]

I'm talking about the image; you're talking about superficial views and prejudice against a brand.

I'm talking about the realities of DPReview and similar sites.

We can complain all day long that what they do isn't right but the negative impact will remain.

No... there is a subjective component of those measurements, and a very much emotional response to it.

I don't think anyone wants to take any positive emotional response away from you. Use the "accelerator" processing, if you like it.
Just allow others to not use if it doesn't work for them.

[Class A]

The “someone outside DPReview’s staff” is a theoretical mathematician who has made a side hustle consulting on computational photography.

I don't know whether he made a "side hustle" but who he is and what he is up to bears no relevance on the objectively obtained measurements.

His “chart” wasn’t objective in the sense that it was based on observable reality.

That's not correct.

His analysis is as objective as it gets and it just reflects what can be observed in the data.
You may debate whether what can be observed in the data is visible to the human eye, but there is absolutely no debating that he is just reporting 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.

No, that's absolutely incorrect. The graphs are not based on any assumptions. They just show how the data in the raw files behaves.

Ricoh was found guilty before they were tried, and cannot be expected to know in advance to defend their decision.

Incorrect.

The evidence for raw smoothing is two-fold:

1. visual comparisons clearly show that the K-1 II applies smoothing to noisy detail.
2. 2D Fourier Transform analysis shows clear signs of smoothing.

You don't get better evidence than this.

What Ricoh indeed couldn't know in advance that the amateurs at DPReview wouldn't just be awed about the "unbelievable DR" that they attributed to the KP when they didn't grok that they were seeing processed raw files (the KP already used the "accelerator unit"). Ricoh had every reason to believe that DPReview would be impressed again (if Ricoh cares at all). This time, however, things went differently.

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

The evidence was scientifically obtained. We can accuse DPReview of many kinds of misdemeanours but entirely inventing the noise reduction occurring in raw files of the K-1 II is not one of them.

[Kunzite]

I'm talking about the realities of DPReview and similar sites.

We can complain all day long that what they do isn't right but the negative impact will remain.


I don't think anyone wants to take any positive emotional response away from you. Use the "accelerator" processing, if you like it.
Just allow others to not use if it doesn't work for them.

Then let's throw away our cameras and lenses and buy Sony, as we're replacing the reality with DPR's.
We already know it's impossible to appease them. That's why - again - I'm not discussing about DPR, less alone trying to "design " a camera for DPR. Star Eater on steroids but they never tested, remember? The accelerator doesn't even have to be there.

It's noy my emotional response, FPS. It's the emotional response to feeling they're taking things (detail) away from you. You don't see it, the image is improved, yet you know it's happening and that cannot be right.

[beachgardener]

DPR, no, a waste of time.