[redpit]

I ran the "Star Eater" experiment using my K-3 and KP, shooting identical, tracked star images, ISO 800 (accelerator range on KP), with the same 400mm APO telescope. I could find NO star, no matter how faint, in the K-3 image that was NOT in the KP image, and the KP image was much cleaner (both RAW-to-TIFF files with no post-processing performed). Not a "Star Eater" at all, but was much BETTER for astro imaging.

The KP has taken over completely for my DSLR-based astro images, when I am not using my regular ZWO astrocam.

Good to know! Don't get me wrong but I found this post the only interesting one in a long series of posts theoritically analyzing already theoritically analized issues... (quite boring IMHO).

[totsmuyco]

I ran the "Star Eater" experiment using my K-3 and KP, shooting identical, tracked star images, ISO 800 (accelerator range on KP), with the same 400mm APO telescope. I could find NO star, no matter how faint, in the K-3 image that was NOT in the KP image, and the KP image was much cleaner (both RAW-to-TIFF files with no post-processing performed). Not a "Star Eater" at all, but was much BETTER for astro imaging.

The KP has taken over completely for my DSLR-based astro images, when I am not using my regular ZWO astrocam.

I don't have a KP but I would definitely assume that the image will be much better and cleaner than the K-3 particularly in low light high ISO situations. I haven't done any astro shots but I believe you must've used some GPS astroracer kinda thing for your KP.

[Rondec]

What those charts don't note is the amount of detail lost due to the NR automatically applied to the KP files. The author does note that the KP applies noise reduction earlier than the D500.

Imaging-Resource's Comparometer indicates the D500 has less noise than the KP at ISO 6400, which I bet more people care about than ISO 819,200.

I looked at them and I thought the KP had less noise than the D500 at iso 6400, but maybe it is just my monitor. Clearly there is some smoothing with the accelerator, I would only say that being able to use iso 6400 on APS-C is something that is very nice. The most recent APS-C camera I own is a K3 and I wouldn't shoot it above iso 3200. There's just too much noise for my taste and I guess I'm not as good at noise reduction as other folks, but when I do it, the end results are not great.

[ffking]

I own both a torch and a pitchfork,

I envy you the need

[ThorSanchez]

That's something of an exaggeration. I don't have a $30,000 hi-fi, but it is reasonable quality (and I do understand how that word is used), nor do I have an anechoic chamber, not even an acoustically-optimised listening room (which I'm sure you know is rather a different thing), but I can quite clearly (even with my diminished hearing ability) hear the difference between compressed and uncompressed versions of the same audio file. When you state things in absolute terms, you can expect to get picked up on it: I do understand that many people won't appreciate the difference, simply because they either don't care or don't understand what it is they're listening to, but that doesn't make it an absolute rule. A commercial decision to go with an MP3 or a FLAC format for streaming listening is made on what the majority of buyers will accept, but that's quite different to saying the sound quality is indistinguishable, because it isn't.

The same goes for photo appreciation. If people don't care about blown-out cloud highlights in a scene, then that's fine by me, but I can see the difference with a version where they aren't, because it's there.

I understand that you can tell. I'm sure I could discern some differences if I really tried. I actually have a decent stereo with a Marantz receiver that's pretty high quality, I ran my own cabling for my speakers and dedicated subwoofer. I'm no audiophile, but I'm probably in the 80th or 90th percentile in trying to get quality out of my audio. And I would certainly have to look at the file data to tell the bit rate and compression scheme of any music I'm listening to in almost all of my use cases. I'd have to try hard to tell the difference, it's not nearly as obvious as having a photo full of blow out highlights.

Although blown highlights are less obvious on a 4" phone screen, which is where most photos are viewed. Similar to how most audio files are listened to on a car stereo with a very high background noise level and varying quality of audio components.

Yes, I realize that I'm arguing that a lot of our photo discussions are pretty meaningless in real-world viewing conditions. And that's probably pretty true. Earlier this year I posted a couple photos of the same car parked by a mountain in Austria. One with a K-3ii and a 40mm limited lens, one with a K-30 and an 18-55 kit lens. It was extremely hard to tell the difference at web viewing sizes and conditions, and multiple long-time posters guessed wrong. One of the reasons cell phones have eclipsed many types of stand-alone cameras, and mp3s and streaming have overwhelmed other types of audio, is that they're largely indistinguishable from more pristine files for many or even most use cases. Sure, edge cases. Listen on a really good system in a quiet room with 22-year-old ears, or view really big photos and you can tell if you try hard enough. But that's not the norm.

[xmeda]

Noise noise noise... it also depends on RAW->JPEG conversion and settings... both KP and D500 have modern sensors and DNR processors. So the real difference is almost non-existent. Certainly not notieable for 95% of users and applications. And if somebody is deciding between these two.. then there are other more important things:

Astronomy:

a) available lenses
b) is astrotracer required, or is skywatch rotation mount available?

General use:

c) IBIS?
c) AF performance
d) video

[TedH42]

I don't have a KP but I would definitely assume that the image will be much better and cleaner than the K-3 particularly in low light high ISO situations. I haven't done any astro shots but I believe you must've used some GPS astroracer kinda thing for your KP.

It would have been astonishing if the KP were not cleaner than the K-3, due to having more recent sensor technology, quite apart from the accelerator. The important part was that the KP was not missing any stars ("eaten" by the accelerator) that the K-3 showed. The greater noise of the K-3 did not cause any trouble with identifying stars, which were ALL present in the KP image.

No GPS or Astrotracer, but an accurately polar-aligned Orion Sirius EQ-G equatorial mount. Standard amateur astronomy stuff.

[Cerebum]

I don't have a KP but I would definitely assume that the image will be much better and cleaner than the K-3 particularly in low light high ISO situations. I haven't done any astro shots but I believe you must've used some GPS astroracer kinda thing for your KP.

I find the iso management is significantly (4x) better than the K3, an the image quality is noticeably sharper

[totsmuyco]

No GPS or Astrotracer, but an accurately polar-aligned Orion Sirius EQ-G equatorial mount. Standard amateur astronomy stuff.

For Amateur astronomy but, gives great results and that's what counts.

[parinya-ekparinya]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you - but generally to the backlash on including the Accelerator Unit on the K-1 II. Some people were really harsh, some were very insistent. Some sites were unfairly harsh, with BS like "Star Eater on steroids" without having tested, and pushing 3rd-parties into repeating these non-findings...

I'm not saying there isn't any detail loss, although I cannot see it in my K-1 II. I'm saying that chart cannot possibly show detail loss, and it's unknown if it shows what happens with real world images.
The noise reduction is much more visible. I'm happy with the result.

Too bad that some people believe this accusation about "Star Eater" without even looking at the images.

A few days ago, I attended the Pentax 100th Anniversary Celebration in Sydney, Australia. There was one guy who made a complaint to Japanese Pentax representative about the issue from the accelerator; he decided not to upgrade to K-1 II. He went further by complaining about how terrible of the autofocus on K-1 and even stated that the APS-C cameras are all craps. He told the Japanese Pentax representative that we will move to Sony if Pentax does not release a new full-frame camera with superior autofocus.

[Serkevan]

I'm sure that Pentax will listen to his demands, particularly when he has obviously already made the decision in his head.

[troenaas]

Good to know! Don't get me wrong but I found this post the only interesting one in a long series of posts theoritically analyzing already theoritically analized issues... (quite boring IMHO).

That's what I call an astute observation. Little news/rumours combined with raffles - that is what we get - threads with posts repeating themselves.

[H. Sapiens]

Too bad that some people believe this accusation about "Star Eater" without even looking at the images.

A few days ago, I attended the Pentax 100th Anniversary Celebration in Sydney, Australia. There was one guy who made a complaint to Japanese Pentax representative about the issue from the accelerator; he decided not to upgrade to K-1 II. He went further by complaining about how terrible of the autofocus on K-1 and even stated that the APS-C cameras are all craps. He told the Japanese Pentax representative that we will move to Sony if Pentax does not release a new full-frame camera with superior autofocus.

Dude should probably just leave because I think he will have to get used to a slow upgrade cycle where Pentax will not be able to keep up with the latest and shiniest gizmos as presented on various tech sites.


The photography forums and blogs are unfortunately dominated by tech talk ad nauseam. Plenty of those who shout the loudest never engage in talk about photography.

[Serkevan]

Complaining about spherochromatism, lack of sharpness and Canon's extending zoom being a dust pump (*pft*) isn't "talking about photography"? What more do you want? Composition? Lighting? Conveying emotion or dynamism in the images? Those are all irrelevant
Heck, they would probably confuse that last one with Dynamic Range, hah.

Half of the people there are gearheads with no interest whatsoever in the pictures beyond whatever technicalities they think of.

[totsmuyco]

Too bad that some people believe this accusation about "Star Eater" without even looking at the images.

A few days ago, I attended the Pentax 100th Anniversary Celebration in Sydney, Australia. There was one guy who made a complaint to Japanese Pentax representative about the issue from the accelerator; he decided not to upgrade to K-1 II. He went further by complaining about how terrible of the autofocus on K-1 and even stated that the APS-C cameras are all craps. He told the Japanese Pentax representative that we will move to Sony if Pentax does not release a new full-frame camera with superior autofocus.

You can't make a company what it isn't. Currently, Pentax is into DSLR, FF and APS-C. I was unhappy with Olympus's shift from 4/3 to M4/3. I didn't bash the system. I just left. If he's unhappy with Pentax, he just has to leave.