[gatorguy]

I really don't mind if people love the "accelerator unit" and may use it myself for some applications.

My point is that while it is great that it appears to be financially viable for Pentax to continue to produce cameras for a somewhat small customer base, it really wouldn't hurt if Pentax attracted some new customers as well.

If only one customer is lost because DPReview make a fuzz about "RAW baking" again -- whether they make a mountain out of a mole hill or not -- that's one customer too many.

Pentax's philosophy seems to be very compatible with the notion of purity. For that reason alone, they should allow the "accelerator unit" to be turned off. The biggest reason, though, is that they shouldn't unnecessarily lose customers, for whatever the reason is.

Yeah, I think we all totally and completely understand the point you keep making.

FWIW I've read over at DPR that Canon's 5D MarkIV for instance also does some RAW baking to account for "lens aberrations, diffraction, and the deterioration of resolution caused by the low-pass filter" unless I'm misunderstanding. There's no big stink being made about it AFAICT. Yes it will be nice of Pentax to allow the accelerator to be turned off. We agree! That it's there and on by default shouldn't bother you since the intention is to maximize the quality of the very-minimally corrected RAW image, same reason Canon does it.

Can't you wait even a few weeks to make sure you actually have some valid complaint about the evil Pentax RAW?

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 07-23-2020 at 08:01 AM.

[Serkevan]

The K-P surprised Pentax, it sold to a lot of customers for whom it was their first Pentax. It didn't sell to K-3 and K-3ii shooters. SO I'd reject that argument.

Just to be pedantic, "it sold more to non-Pentax users" can also mean "we didn't sell as much as we wanted to Pentax users" and it's not to be taken as "the KP increased Ricoh's market share", as it's entirely possible that it might as well have happened that a bunch of users jumped ship because of there not being a K-3iii in a while. Without absolute sales numbers it's all marketing fluff.

[rawr]

Gah!.

Hey Ricoh, pls release a K-new spec sheet asap.

[ThorSanchez]

I didn't argue for omitting the "accelerator unit" entirely.

With an optional "accelerator unit", one can gain three from the allure of "better high ISO performance" and not lose the one due to RAW baking.

What's wrong about that?

Nothing, if that's realizable within the architecture of the camera. But it's been strongly implied that Pentax implemented the accelerator using hardware or other means that is not able to be turned off. With current cameras there was a choice between ideological purity and better high ISO performance, and Pentax has chosen the latter.

[Spodeworld]

Exactly....it's 2020 and it's a competitive disadvantage to not to have it, and limiting too. I've gotten into positions like this on the street and I would love to not have to get the angles I want. It would seriously increase creative options.

I'm sure these two professional newspaper photographers would have liked to have a movable screen of some kind while shooting wrestling. Meanwhile I shot sitting down with my Sony A6400 near the mat with the screen flipped up.

The point about features is that they give the photographer options. You can use a touch screen or the four-way controller, the flippy screen or the viewfinder, the pop-up flash or an external flash, the list goes on.

Some people are defending the camera design by saying, "I don't use an articulating screen." The point is that's your choice. Nothing is taken away from photographers if they never use a flippy screen. Addition of a flippy screen is an extra choice given to users who have different shooting styles.

[ThorSanchez]

Of course they could "keep them all".

If you make "accelerator unit" processing optional, you attract those who like it without turning anyone away.

It would be nice to have a conversation with the engineering team to see if you're correct in your assumption that making the accelerator optional is simple and without any negative impacts to cost, schedule, or performance. My guess is that in the 2017-era camera architectures they were using it wasn't any of that, instead it was difficult and would have made the cameras late and more expensive.

[normhead]

If you make "accelerator unit" processing optional, you attract those who like it without turning anyone away.

No reasonable people are turned away at present, any more than the lower SOC jpeg images being slightly lower resolution from a Pentax.
I know of not one person, who left Pentax because of the accelerator unit. If that was an issue there would have been a lot more people leaving Sony over the star eater problem. I've heard lots of grumbling though, most of it with photographic justification. If it's so bad, why is it so hard to demonstrate?

I was out yesterday with my k-1 under the forest canopy, and had to crank the ISO up to 200. For some reason I got unacceptable noise in one part of the image, which I ended up blurring.
If Pentax as they claim have dropped the noise reduction to be effective even in 100 ISO, I might have changed my processing of that image. My shooting demonstrates the need for the accelerator.

You keep saying there's a downside, yet, I've not seen a single image that demonstrates that. Every image that purported to show there was detail in the un-accelratored image didn't normalize the noise, which made the finished non-accelerator image unacceptable. Actually both images were unacceptable. I need to see a real world justification, where one of the images is one I would use and the other isn't. That would be real. What you're pretending exists in my experience doesn't.

I can't be more emphatic... there is absolutely nothing beyond really bad testing, and disputable micro evidence that would support your case. IMHO the only thing you don't like about the accelerator chip is you know it's there. If you didn't know, you wouldn't see the difference. But the difference for the accelerator cleaning up noise is definite.

But I'm also open to other interpretations. By now you have to know we aren't taking your word for it.

I won't argue for including a feature that is un-necessaary and based on the personal beliefs of a very few people. I have no idea why you keep this alive. So show me... (I won't be holding my breath.)

Prove me wrong, or maybe stop polluting other threads with your misinformation. I'm not on either side of this. I'll change my mind in a heart beat. But not for the crap evidence opposed to the accelerator and the undeniable evidence on every site that does comparison images. I do find the strength of belief bordering on religious for those who have taken up this cause.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-23-2020 at 08:29 AM.

[ZeljkoS]

Very exciting... new 16-50, new aps-c flagship, improved autofocus and image quality
This will be my next camera, time to retire my K-5 IIs

[Wheatfield]

Just one remark: I would not be so sure about the GPS (correctly GNSS) in the new model. The space below the prism housing was traditionally either used for a flash, GPS or - maybe - a larger prism with the qualities described for this viewfinder...

That would mean no astrotracer and the like. Are people still willing to use the O-GPS1? The problem with features is that they very quickly become expectations.

[Biro]

It may not be the camera, it may be your technique...
Pentax KP experience... 3 weeks and 3500 clicks later - Page 5 - PentaxForums.com

Just saying

Yes, I'm aware of all of that. Of course one can shoot sports with a Pentax. But I've had to compensate for the brand's shortcomings in this area for some 15 years. Pentax cameras offer many strengths. But autofocus - despite steadily improving - is still not competitive.

[ogl]

Very exciting... new 16-50, new aps-c flagship, improved autofocus and image quality
This will be my next camera, time to retire my K-5 IIs

the same

[SoonerCaniac]

That would mean no astrotracer and the like. Are people still willing to use the O-GPS1? The problem with features is that they very quickly become expectations.

I don't necessarily mind using an O-GPS1 for my needs, until I need a fill flash. I don't mind purchasing a small flash for this purpose in order for me to have GPS built-in. However, there's only one hotshoe obviously and I would use both features often enough that the lack of an in-body GPS would be very difficult to accept, in 2020, after waiting years for a new model. However, I cannot wrap my head around the absence of GPS given Pentax's astrotracer innovations so I'll wait for official specs before worrying about that. My new Olympus TG-6 has managed space in its compact body for a GPS module, so why not the K-new (no, I am not an engineer)? Fuji (among others?) has gone the route of geotagging photos using the location feature on your smartphone and this is one major reason I've resisted the temptation to jump ship. I do not want to be tethered to my smartphone much less have location on all the time. To each his own, of course.

[Pål Jensen]

Just one remark: I would not be so sure about the GPS (correctly GNSS) in the new model. The space below the prism housing was traditionally either used for a flash, GPS or - maybe - a larger prism with the qualities described for this viewfinder...

I believe its got GPS. There's a raised area in front of the hotshoe that seem to be separated from the prism, and maybe made of a different material (plastic?).

[MMVIII]

It got praised by DPReview, i.e., from the guys whose evaluation of cameras includes the JPEG "quality" (quality = "what plays to their preferences") at the camera's default settings.

Note, however that even DPReview wrote

"we suspect there's some 'baking' done to the Raw files. There are clear signs of noise reduction upon further analysis of the Raw (the green channel shows blotches of no detail where other cameras do not). And this comes at a cost - sometimes decreased detail, and odd cross-hatch patterning throughout the image" (emphasis is mine)

I don't know whether they wrote that in their original review -- i.e., without having any camera with a similar sensor to compare to and/or the hindsight about the K-1 II RAW file cooking -- or added it after their K-1 II investigation gave them an explanation for the unlikely results.

If the KP was praised by its users, that's fine. I don't think anyone arguing against a mandatory activation of the "accelerator unit" minds that some users like the results of the image-processing. The point is not that the RAW baking is evil and must always be avoided, the point is that it is detrimental to some applications.


It does not matter whether a fact is discovered by someone with credentials or not.
One can measure the details smoothing of the K-1 II with methods that are accepted by image processing experts. Once can also see the loss of detail with one's own eyes.

It's anyone's judgment whether they think there is no loss of detail, or that there is one but it's worth having as a very small byproduct of the otherwise welcome noise reduction, or that they'd rather get the data without "accelerator unit" involvement.


That's great. I think everyone is happy for you.

No need to suggest, though, that others, who don't take the same view, are "credential-less 'experts'".

I'm pretty sure these lines have not been in the original review and might have been added later.
The blotches are a thing, but I assume they have more to do with the Raw converter than with the AC.

However, I understand your position. But I would suggest to wait and see (sic!). The image processing pipeline is way more complex as we probably assume and just bypassing a computational step might just not be as easy as it might be thought. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the image is in the looking.

[taks]

I'm sure the K-New will be *the* APS-C camera. I just think that nowadays the price range and the performance between FF and APS-C is overlapping so much that there's no point in considering them different markets,

Yes. Mr. Wakashiro did say he wanted to break the conventional notion that 'APS-C is an inferior product compared to FF' with this camera( what ever that means) around 12:25 in the video. I think he is also telling us that the Knew will be priced above K1II.