[D FA 24 F2]

ok, Confirm focus point > 100
dfa 85 1.4 will release some information at this mouth

[Mistral75]

ok, Confirm focus point > 100
dfa 85 1.4 will release some information this month

This is indeed to be expected considering the parallel between HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW and HD Pentax-D FA★ 85mm f/1.4, two years later.

[sbh]

With all the talk here about the accelerator unit, I'll be interested to see whether the new APS-C has one - there are three possibilities - one is that they just plonk one in - it's a Ricoh technology and they are happy with it - two is that they have refined it still further and it produces next to no noticeable loss of detail while boosting colour and reducing noise still furrther- or three that with a newer more modern sensor (along with recognition of criticism) they decide that they don't need it

My guess ist one + two. Pentax goes after best possible IQ so I think it's not too far off that they keep developing stuff to improve IQ.

[solitudebound]

So long as they offer the option to disable to accelerator chip, i am happy. I wish my Nikon D850 had that option so that it could have gotten more accurate rendering instead of auto boosting at just under 400 iso whether you like it or not.

As an observation in general i have noticed that the camera companies are forcing MACROS. These are sets of settings where you can set only one feature in that particular set hinting at people that this is all that is required and making their camera locked in as idiot proof and no room to actually learn the skills. I like Pentax because they expect the user to change settings and not argue with the user and if you make a mistake you can actually learn from it.

---

Last edited by solitudebound; 10-10-2019 at 10:02 AM.

[bdery]

am I the only one whose first action on getting a new camera is to change the focus points from "whatever they are" to central 9 ?

Central one for me, most of the time.

[Belnan]

ok, Confirm focus point > 100
dfa 85 1.4 will release some information at this mouth

I wonder what reviewer's will have left to complain about if Pentax puts together an amazing AF system?

[Class A]

I wonder what reviewer's will have left to complain about if Pentax puts together an amazing AF system?

• "No eye-AF".
• "No AF-tracking during video".
• "Burst rate only at 2017 levels".
• "Joystick doesn't elicit joy" (that one is by someone else. EDIT: Turns out it was @MikeyBugs95).
• "Limited lens selection".
• "Default JPEG development settings are unpleasant".
• "Video specs only at 2018 levels".
• "Optical viewfinder not ideal for beginners".
• "Not as compact as a mirrorless system".
• "Camera probably bakes raw files (we could not prove the opposite)".

P.S.: These are inspired by what we've been hearing from what Kirck Tuck refers to as "photography's effete, millennial saturated (dis)information commerce site".

---

Last edited by Class A; 10-12-2019 at 10:25 AM.

[mlt]

1 - Not mirrorless
2 - Too many focus points
3 - Under $2k camera not as fast as over $3.5k cameras
4 - Not video oriented
5 - Not a sncf
6 - Anything else they think will get them site hits

[reh321]

So long as they offer the option to disable to accelerator chip,

The Engineers are reported as saying that the 'accelerator' - as used is the K70, KP, and K-1ii - could not be disabled. We, of course, do not know what has been done in the nearly two years since the K-1ii came out.

[lsimpkins]

...If I were Ricoh, I would be looking very hard to find a way to make the accelerator effect have an on/off switch to make people who want to stack deep sky images without thinking they might lose something or whatever their beef is a possibility, or maybe a sliding scale to choose what iso it kicked in.

So maybe the unlabeled switch on the K-? is just such an On/Off function switch. Route the data from the sensor to the accelerator or bypass it if that is the user's preference - user selectable based on the image to be captured.

As far as this not being possible - I can't fathom why not. For data in the digital realm, mulitplexers could be used. If analog information is involved there are analog switches that can change the routing. If there is absolutely required signal processing that is performed in the accelerator, that processing could be replicated in another chip to separate it from the noise processing performed in the accelerator. Not an easy solution, but doable.

[MMVIII]

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.

Thank you Mike! I see what you mean. One could argue about this handpicked part (the Ricoh/Pentax processing pipeline seems to have a not so good "bias" in pink details anyway, as comparisons with other cameras at Imaging Resource might show from time to time) and at the same time about the brown fabric at the same section, where the K1-II seems (!) to show even more detail.
My final conclusion: the accelerator unit might influence (almost invisible) your magenta tones, as these are closest to chroma noise. It might give you more detail in other areas where chroma noise obtruces your images otherwise.

Any visible influence on stacked images still has to be presented.

But this topic might be done --- or will just be raffled further ;-)

---------- Post added 10-10-19 at 08:18 PM ----------

Right on! Just because something does not effect or bother us, doesn't mean we shouldn't empathize with things that are issues for others. Not that they should cater to every wild wim or esoteric demand, but something largely debated should get their attention. If I were Ricoh, I would be looking very hard to find a way to make the accelerator effect have an on/off switch to make people who want to stack deep sky images without thinking they might lose something or whatever their beef is a possibility, or maybe a sliding scale to choose what iso it kicked in. So far Pentax is known for stills and landscapes cameras, and astro, they certainly cant afford to alienate any segments within those specialty areas, even if their new AF is much better and opens back up other market segments.

Eric

See, this is what I consider a dangerous development in the run up to the new camera. The exxagerated continuation of this topic might just give some people a hit if they would realise that (maybe, I don't know but it is likely) the Pentax/Ricoh designers after their extensive in house testings do not see this as a necessity at all and stick to this design decision. It is getting esoteric, like some HiFi cable thing. No blind test has ever revealed any difference between high quality cables and stupidly expensive special ones. But some people want to get robbed.

EDIT: edited Image from Imagin resource. K1II vs D810 ISO 100.
This is what I call a visible difference.
But be aware: these are processed jpgs as a screenshot and with other processing the results may look different. Beside a slight focus difference.

[Larrymc]

I wonder what reviewer's will have left to complain about if Pentax puts together an amazing AF system?

Oh don't worry they'll think of something!

[Erictator]

[LIST]
[*]"Limited lens selection".

Hey, I love my Limited's! That should be in the Plus Column!
Eric
(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Erictator]

Thank you Mike! I see what you mean. One could argue about this handpicked part (the Ricoh/Pentax processing pipeline seems to have a not so good "bias" in pink details anyway, as comparisons with other cameras at Imaging Resource might show from time to time) and at the same time about the brown fabric at the same section, where the K1-II seems (!) to show even more detail.
My final conclusion: the accelerator unit might influence (almost invisible) your magenta tones, as these are closest to chroma noise. It might give you more detail in other areas where chroma noise obtruces your images otherwise.

Any visible influence on stacked images still has to be presented.

But this topic might be done --- or will just be raffled further ;-)

---------- Post added 10-10-19 at 08:18 PM ----------



See, this is what I consider a dangerous development in the run up to the new camera. The exxagerated continuation of this topic might just give some people a hit if they would realise that (maybe, I don't know but it is likely) the Pentax/Ricoh designers after their extensive in house testings do not see this as a necessity at all and stick to this design decision. It is getting esoteric, like some HiFi cable thing. No blind test has ever revealed any difference between high quality cables and stupidly expensive special ones. But some people want to get robbed.

I thought free speech was only considered dangerous in... oh never mind. That was NOT my intent. I've re-stated that many times, and if you keep taking snippets out of context, I guess you can have some fun. Everwhat. I was only trying to make peace with the idea that if people have glommed onto the fact that the feature exists, and DPR has publicized it as a negative marketing issue, weather real or perceived, RPentax might consider and Off switch, an when I said switch, I meant a menu dive option, not some mystery button on the back that people will hit by accident. Maybe put it into a user1-5 mode macro.
Eric
PS: Constant harping on every post that mentions it is perpetuating the issue as much as the original poster.

[reh321]

• "Camera probably bakes raw files (we could not prove the opposite)".

As I have already said, this merely means the user cannot undo what the processor has done before creating the 'raw' file, like any other 'raw' file - and like any other 'raw' file, it should be judged on its own merits. As long as the latter is followed, it is a totally valid "criticism".