[caliscouser]

Can we keep this thread focused on information about the new APS-C flagship (as and when information comes out)?

This back and forth on the accelerator is tedious and being dominated by a few individuals. I would suggest it is better suited to another thread.

[Class A]

Right, and here I have a problem with Class A's approach to please dpreview.

Please note that I don't have any approach that has the intention of pleasing dpreview. I stated elsewhere that 'm not suggesting that Ricoh should pander to DPReview.

They were never able to bring any proof of this in any image, ...

I agree that they made a lot of mistakes and embarrassed themselves, in particular the "science editor" who called others trolls even though they were just reporting facts, however it is not true that they didn't present any proofs.

They elicited the help of Bill Claff whose image analysis confirmed that raw data received denoising processing. There is really no dispute about the fact that the raw data is being "treated" by the "accelerator" unit.

...but they tried to influence independent astrophotographers reviewing it, which had not seen (!) any deteriorationg effect in their use scenario at all.

That was most dubious and seems to confirm my hunch that DPReview's claims to "loving Pentax" are the height of hypocrisy. To go to such length to throw shade at the K-1 II is "remarkable". Yet, it does not alter the fact that the "accelerator" unit is "just" a built-in post-processor whose effects are welcome by some and unwelcome by others.

[Kunzite]

Where else would it be generated?

I already answered this by giving some examples.

The sensor delivers digital data. There is no way any noise could be introduced outside the sensor.

Whoa there. The digital image capture process is largely analogue (one could say the film is digital by the way) - that is, until the A/DC does its job. Only down the stream it is digital.
The sensors are so incredibly efficient than any itsy bitsy factor can introduce significant noise in this chain. I already gave some examples.

Of course, there is the noise of the light itself, but I think we are both excluding that here.

Of course.

Of course there are external factors that influence the noise, for instance temperature.

These have nothing to do with the "accelerator" unit, though.

Do you even know what the accelerator does? What if it does apply dark frame NR based on - for instance - temperature, or other such factors?

Every manufacturer knows how to build a power supply that meets the requirements of a Sony sensor.

Whoa there #2. It's much more complicated than writing the line above.

And, again, what does this have to do with the "accelerator" unit?
Whether anyone makes certain assumptions about the power supply being able to induce noise or not, has no bearing on what the "accelerator" unit does.

Again, do you even know what the accelerator does?

See above. Not relevant for what the true function of the "accelerator" unit is.

Which is...?

If the "accelerator" unit were able to mitigate any such influences then you'd be able to achieve the same with a K-1 by just stabilising the operating conditions.

Again this is nowhere as simple as writing the line above. "Stabilising the operating conditions"? What the beep does it means?

This patent describes an approach in which the "noise-reading processor reads noise signals from a pixel circuit for a pixel that is an object of noise acquisition, in parallel with the reading of accumulated charges by the charge-reading processor.". This is a good idea to deal with transients during sensor readout but it is not possible to implement this scheme with a stock Sony sensor.

The patent was an example of noise issues actually encountered in a camera, because you have this wrong idea that a sensor is impervious to external (internal to the camera) factors.
It might be applicable to a Sony sensor, it might be applicable to a Ricoh custom-made sensor. I won't try to overload my brain with automatically translated Patentese to find out which is more likely.

No one is disputing that you prefer the processed images.

Breaking news: you prefer processed images, too. You cannot see unprocessed ones, anyway (not even by investigating the content of a RAW file with a hex editor).

[Class A]

Part of the question would have to be: Does the Accelerator help to mitigate any of the issues attributable to the lens and/or sensor?

Whatever it does, the same can be achieved by post-processing outside the camera.

Some users prefer to have the choice whether they do that post-processing at all, or which method they use. Some users prefer to have the option of being able to use methods that aren't even available today. All that is not possible anymore, once the data has been tampered with.

IMHO the Pentax Accelerator array may actually have the least negative effect of all three variables on the RAW image.

Be that as it may, you cannot avoid the influence of a lens on the image, or the impact of a colour profile on the final image. However, both of these effects are inevitable and the user has a choice over which effects they prefer (by choosing the lens and/or the camera profile). Neither of these attributes (inevitability and choice) apply to what the "accelerator" unit is doing.

[normhead]

Can we keep this thread focused on information about the new APS-C flagship (as and when information comes out)?

This back and forth on the accelerator is tedious and being dominated by a few individuals. I would suggest it is better suited to another thread.

The whole issue can be settle by looking at one picture taken with the accelerator and on taken without. A K-P vs a K-3 or a K-1 vs a K-1ii. I don't care what the theory is, if I take it shooting the way I walks shoot and one is better than the other I'll take the better one. If there's hardly any difference I'll take the cheaper one. Why discussion is need I have no clue. And since everything coming out recently has had the accelerator chip, people arguing against it may as well find another brand. Pentax knows what it does and thinks it's a worthwhile addition. There are lots of brands who don't. Just reading the posts from K-P users, most Pentax users, especially on APS-c think it's a pretty big deal.

There are folks on the forum who wold argue white is black and black is white. Don't let those clowns cloud your judgement.

[Class A]

Can we keep this thread focused on information about the new APS-C flagship (as and when information comes out)?

I believe in times of an active raffle, there is no chance to hope for tightly focused threads anyhow. I tried to save another thread from being contaminated by a ton of short one-liners, but to no avail.

At least the "accelerator" unit discussion is of a technical nature and not just a matter of exchanging quips.

Also, the "accelerator" unit discussion is pertinent to the new APS camera as it may or may not have an "accelerator" unit that may or may not be disabled. Which of these scenarios will be the case, will matter in terms of the reception of the camera by users and the press.

[normhead]

At least the "accelerator" unit discussion is of a technical nature and not just a matter of exchanging quips.

No one knows anything about the technical nature of the accelerator chip. Are you kidding. People just snap a few photos and make up nonsense.

Give it a rest. Go to the K-P thread. You won't find a single K-P owner arguing that they should be able to disable the accelerator chip. This is a bogus argument made up by users trying to make waves the day they bought the camera. I've not seen one post critical of the accelerator chip from an experienced user.

And if there are 1 or two experienced users complaining, I don't care. The overwhelming majority are happy with the accelerator chip.

[Class A]

Do you know what a certain site would be fixed on, in their review of a Pentax with an optional Accelerator Unit?

I mean nothing is impossible when one isn't guided by rational thought, but what kind of argument are you anticipating from that "certain site"? How can anyone sensibly argue against a choice?

The fear of a loss is a very, very strong motivator, and "we might be losing detail" is stronger than "the image is overall improved".

Some people may suffer from such "fear", but you don't have to be one of them to see why an optional "accelerator" unit would be far better than a mandatory one.

[Erictator]

I believe in times of an active raffle, there is no chance to hope for tightly focused threads anyhow. I tried to save another thread from being contaminated by a ton of short one-liners, but to no avail.

At least the "accelerator" unit discussion is of a technical nature and not just a matter of exchanging quips.

Also, the "accelerator" unit discussion is pertinent to the new APS camera as it may or may not have an "accelerator" unit that may or may not be disabled. Which of these scenarios will be the case, will matter in terms of the reception of the camera by users and the press.

I always can tell when a thread has really devolved, and it usually starts with a Monty Python quote fest... ummm... like:

"This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!"

I still own/use my original K-1, and would get the Mk II in a New York minute if my K-1 dies. The accelerator noise controversy doesn't start at iso100, and kicks in much later anyway, so it's really not an issue for my type of shooting. I was just trying to say I could sympathize with the other sides fears. Coming from shooting film, and never using above iso400 if I could avoid it back then, and only exotic iso film above 800 in B&W, this is not a burden for me. Don't get me wrong, I use high iso all the time on the K-1, but any NR I do in post is going to be well beyond what is being debated here.
Eric

[Kunzite]

I mean nothing is impossible when one isn't guided by rational thought, but what kind of argument are you anticipating from that "certain site"? How can anyone sensibly argue against a choice?

Some people may suffer from such "fear", but you don't have to be one of them to see why an optional "accelerator" unit would be far better than a mandatory one.

I thought I explained the one way this can actually be true.
At a rational level, indeed, if a simple "accelerator switch" could be made then that can't possibly hurt, yes? (I have a feeling it's much more complicated than choosing to/not to apply a noise filter in CaptureOne or whatever )
But as I said, the only reason we're having these long discussions is that we actually had a choice, an "accelerator switch" made possible by having both the K-1 and the K-1 II. Unlike with the K-70 and KP, people really started paying attention and even obsessing about the idea of losing... something.
No K-1 (i.e. if we had the AU version from the beginning), no such talks and everyone would've been happy.

[BigMackCam]

Can someone point me to the areas in the images where the K1II has less details visible than the K1?

Although I own neither the K-1 nor the K-1II, I played around with DPR's test images quite a lot when the K-1II was released and there was the initial furore around the image accelerator. Generally, I think most (not all, but most) folks are worried about nothing, as the positive impact far outweighs the negative, IMHO. That said, it's possible to find very minor reduced detail from the K-1II in certain specific circumstances, if you really look for it.

Below is a magnified screen grab of the worst affected part of DPR's test image. The comparisons are at 1:1 reproduction size, but then I've magnified this screen grab to 130% to exaggerate the effect. Compare the top two images first - K-1 on the left, K-1II on the right, ISO 100... nothing to see here, it all looks rosy. Now, compare the lower two images at ISO 6400. Look at the body and arm of the magenta jacket, and you'll see that there is some detail loss on the K-1II image. But I'm keen to stress, this is real pixel-peeping stuff.

[house]

Although I own neither the K-1 nor the K-1II, I played around with DPR's test images quite a lot when the K-1II was released and there was the initial furore around the image accelerator. Generally, I think most (not all, but most) folks are worried about nothing, as the positive impact far outweighs the negative, IMHO. That said, it's possible to find very minor reduced detail from the K-1II in certain specific circumstances, if you really look for it.

Below is a magnified screen grab of the worst affected part of DPR's test image. The comparisons are at 1:1 reproduction size, but then I've magnified this screen grab to 130% to exaggerate the effect. Compare the top two images first - K-1 on the left, K-1II on the right, ISO 100... nothing to see here, it all looks rosy. Now, compare the lower two images at ISO 6400. Look at the body and arm of the magenta jacket, and you'll see that there is some detail loss on the K-1II image. But I'm keen to stress, this is real pixel-peeping stuff.

Unfortunately I think you are expecting to much from dpreview. Those differences *could* be misfocus, bumped lens etc etc. I think its likely the accelerator but with differences this slight I think you need more stringent methodology than dpreview provides.

[normhead]

Although I own neither the K-1 nor the K-1II, I played around with DPR's test images quite a lot when the K-1II was released and there was the initial furore around the image accelerator. Generally, I think most (not all, but most) folks are worried about nothing, as the positive impact far outweighs the negative, IMHO. That said, it's possible to find very minor reduced detail from the K-1II in certain specific circumstances, if you really look for it.

Below is a magnified screen grab of the worst affected part of DPR's test image. The comparisons are at 1:1 reproduction size, but then I've magnified this screen grab to 130% to exaggerate the effect. Compare the top two images first - K-1 on the left, K-1II on the right, ISO 100... nothing to see here, it all looks rosy. Now, compare the lower two images at ISO 6400. Look at the body and arm of the magenta jacket, and you'll see that there is some detail loss on the K-1II image. But I'm keen to stress, this is real pixel-peeping stuff.

That is a lot of work, thanks for doing it, but I'd qualify it by noting, often in comparative lab tests I find not enough attention is paid to ensuring the focus points are the same in both images. When examining two comparison images on IR, there were times the you could argue that one was sharper than the other, then you went to a different part of the image and you could argue the opposite. I would argue that overall image quality at the size the image will be displayed is a better test for most people, than would be pixel peeping.

[TwoUptons]

Below is a magnified screen grab of the worst affected part of DPR's test image. The comparisons are at 1:1 reproduction size, but then I've magnified this screen grab to 130% to exaggerate the effect. Compare the top two images first - K-1 on the left, K-1II on the right, ISO 100... nothing to see here, it all looks rosy. Now, compare the lower two images at ISO 6400. Look at the body and arm of the magenta jacket, and you'll see that there is some detail loss on the K-1II image. But I'm keen to stress, this is real pixel-peeping stuff.

This is an excellent example.
I know I’ve been very pleased with results from the K1ii.

That said, it would put all of our paranoia to rest if it had an off switch... and maybe the new camera will have that so we can talk about it during next year’s contest raffle

-Eric

[house]

Thing is, which is often noted, that cameras are so good you really have to go to extreme lengths to find differences.

At most viewing sizes any camera from the past 10 years will do.