[MMVIII]

Yes - I don't think think the migration of the S-Fn button to the top plate is a coincidence

There is a large LCD which shows you which setting is mapped to the third wheel. By pressing the S-Fn button you choose the option which is easily visible on the LCD. After that you scroll through the settings and can also see them on the LCD. I highly doubt the wheel beside the viewfinder will be used for more than the marked options. There would be no benefit in it and not being able to switch between LV and OVF because you want to have e.g. ISO on the third wheel would be confusing.

[shiner]

I wonder if you can Dremel the LCD out and put a hinge on it.

[Class A]

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

I wish "we" included everyone posting to this thread.

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.

You don't need to convince me that DPReview does not apply the same standards when or when not to take umbrage at something.

Personally, I couldn't care less what other cameras do with respect to RAW baking. They may or may not do it, it does not concern me, as I'm not using them.

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.

Well, just because the intention is good, doesn't mean nobody should ever be bothered by the side effects.
If it were only "on by default" we wouldn't have this conversation; a problem only exists if it is "always on".

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

This must be a misunderstanding.

When I initially reported about the "accelerator unit", I was 100% neutral and only said "There is a new "accelerator unit" as well. Some will like that, some won't. No words on whether its use will be optional this time."

Only after it was suggested that an "accelerator unit" isn't problematic anyhow, I wrote "I really don't mind if people love the "accelerator unit" and may use it myself for some applications." and then pointed out that everyone would win, if it could be made optional.

I don't see how that equates to prematurely complaining "about the evil Pentax RAW".

[Class A]

But it's been strongly implied that Pentax implemented the accelerator using hardware or other means that is not able to be turned off.

To the best of my knowledge no Pentax engineer ever suggested something remotely along these lines.

Note that it is already "turned off" below ISO 640 in the K-1 II and that the reason the chip which performs the "denoising" (which is not "noise reduction") is called an "accelerator unit" is because it is an image processor that speeds up computation which would otherwise be done by the main image engine. We are not talking about sensor-related noise reduction that is difficult or impossible to remove from the processing chain. This is an image-processing step, that could be omitted, if desired. In the latest video, Pentax themselves call it "image-processing", not "sensor noise reduction" or similar.

Again, I'm cool with anyone who likes the "accelerator unit". All I'm asking for is for everyone to acknowledge that other people may have different preferences.

[Class A]

Except pretty much everyone who posts on internet forums, including you and me, are lacking in credentials.

Again, credentials don't matter. Facts do.

K-1 II images have been subjected to a 2D Fourier analysis which shows the attenuation of spatial high frequencies (read "loss of fine detail", which is inevitable when denoising is performed). You can use ImageJ for that, if you want to replicate the result.

I had a good hard look at the comparison that this website did between the K1 and K1II, and found that there was no lacking in detail in the newer cameras files until a pretty high ISO, at which point it was fairly obvious that some built in noise reduction was present, but honestly, nothing that I wouldn't be doing myself,

That's cool. I don't see anyone wanting to take that away from you.

However, others wouldn't replicate the built-in noise reduction; for instance, they would only apply it to some parts of the image, but not to other parts.

I believe what I see with my own eyes, not what someone else tells me to see.

Same here.

When I look at the comparison done by pentaxforums.com my own eyes tell me they prefer the K-1 images. Note that they write

"...fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail."

Why shouldn't have everyone the choice over details vs lower noise levels? It is also clear that for image processing as applied in astrophotography (deep image stacks) it is better to work with unadulterated noisy images than using pre-denoised images.

[Class A]

I suggest that we no longer discuss the "accelerator unit" in this thread. I only responded to some who quoted me in an attempt to avoid misunderstanding and/or to clarify earlier comments.

Let's agree to disagree, and if that's not possible, someone who wants to continue with the topic should start a dedicated thread.

I think this thread should be about sharing enthusiasm for the new APS-C flagship. No one knows whether the "accelerator unit" will be optional or not, so the topic shouldn't really be in this thread. I'm not normally fuzzed about "off-topic" side discussions but this one has the potential of derailing a thread so why not drop it here?

All the best.

[MMVIII]

Again, credentials don't matter. Facts do.

K-1 II images have been subjected to a 2D Fourier analysis which shows the attenuation of spatial high frequencies (read "loss of fine detail", which is inevitable when denoising is performed). You can use ImageJ for that, if you want to replicate the result.


That's cool. I don't see anyone wanting to take that away from you.

However, others wouldn't replicate the built-in noise reduction; for instance, they would only apply it to some parts of the image, but not to other parts.


Same here.

When I look at the comparison done by pentaxforums.com my own eyes tell me they prefer the K-1 images. Note that they write

"...fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail."

Why shouldn't have everyone the choice over details vs lower noise levels? It is also clear that for image processing as applied in astrophotography (deep image stacks) it is better to work with unadulterated noisy images than using pre-denoised images.

This is bordering obsession. Sorry. Everyone got your point and this topic is getting way to much exposure.

I work with photogrammetry and image based modelling and in that I can need any details in images I can get. But I guarantee you that in real life the difference in two lenses, the aperture, the air temperature, and many other factors will play a larger role in the renditiin of details than something that can be determined by a 2D Fourier analysis.

You want to be friendly by calling out for an off switch, but I think that is not working.

[Andrea K]

The Pentax Forum interview with Ricoh Imaging at CP+ 2017 touched on manual focusing:

10. A lot of Pentax fans enjoy manual lenses. Have you considered developing an electronic viewfinder or hybrid viewfinder for precise manual focusing?
We are constantly researching ways to evolve the viewfinder. One of our ideas is a hybrid finder. We are also looking into ways to improve current optical viewfinders to that users can enjoy a better experience with manual lenses.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/cpplus-2017/cp-2017-pentax-interview-part-1.html#page_1

And in the current video presentation, Wakashiro-san stated that "[The viewfinder] reproduces the focal point more accurately and clearly, making it easier for you to pinpoint it."

I'm thinking that the new camera will provide for accurate manual focusing, or at least a significant improvement over the current implementation. That would be terrific, and reinforces Ricoh Imaging's appreciation and recognition of users' keen interest in the many excellent older lenses.

- Craig

Think that the OVF of the K-1 is way inferior to that of the ... MX, that is inferior to that of the LX. To improve the focal point rendition it would be enough a better OVF also without "hybrid" technology.

[fsge]

Again, credentials don't matter. Facts do.

K-1 II images have been subjected to a 2D Fourier analysis which shows the attenuation of spatial high frequencies (read "loss of fine detail", which is inevitable when denoising is performed). You can use ImageJ for that, if you want to replicate the result.


That's cool. I don't see anyone wanting to take that away from you.

However, others wouldn't replicate the built-in noise reduction; for instance, they would only apply it to some parts of the image, but not to other parts.


Same here.

When I look at the comparison done by pentaxforums.com my own eyes tell me they prefer the K-1 images. Note that they write

"...fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail."

Why shouldn't have everyone the choice over details vs lower noise levels? It is also clear that for image processing as applied in astrophotography (deep image stacks) it is better to work with unadulterated noisy images than using pre-denoised images.

Maybe 1% of K1 purchasers have time to waste and wish to dive into this level of details.

I have an accelerator in KP and like the output very much. I do not care if signal processing supressed higher frequencies or whatever as long as images are at par.

[MetteHHH]

I wonder if you can Dremel the LCD out and put a hinge on it.

OR you could stick a hinge on a cell phone with tethering software and attach that to the back of your camera with screws! Possibilities are endless!

I have never anticipated a camera release as much as this one! Main areas of improvement - AF and high iso performance - are exactly what I wished for, dual card slots is a perk I would have hated to lose, and the new viewfinder sounds like something I look very much forward to trying out.

Hoping for October!

[Kunzite]

The Pentax Forum interview with Ricoh Imaging at CP+ 2017 touched on manual focusing:

10. A lot of Pentax fans enjoy manual lenses. Have you considered developing an electronic viewfinder or hybrid viewfinder for precise manual focusing?
We are constantly researching ways to evolve the viewfinder. One of our ideas is a hybrid finder. We are also looking into ways to improve current optical viewfinders to that users can enjoy a better experience with manual lenses.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/cpplus-2017/cp-2017-pentax-interview-part-1.html#page_1

And in the current video presentation, Wakashiro-san stated that "[The viewfinder] reproduces the focal point more accurately and clearly, making it easier for you to pinpoint it."

I'm thinking that the new camera will provide for accurate manual focusing, or at least a significant improvement over the current implementation. That would be terrific, and reinforces Ricoh Imaging's appreciation and recognition of users' keen interest in the many excellent older lenses.

- Craig

And people are saying the interviews are useless!
It's not the first time we get a hint at future products/features.

[iheiramo]

Why shouldn't have everyone the choice over details vs lower noise levels?

You can. Just shoot RAW ISO400 or lower and accelerator won't kick in. Then adjust exposure in post with whatever noice reduction you prefer. For anyone to care about acceleration unit need to shoot RAW and do PP anyway. No biggie. Certainly not worth years of complaining on forum. I do it all the time, but only because for some reason C1 v12 doesn't work well with high ISO files from K1ii.

[Kunzite]

No. This isn't a choice of "details vs lower noise levels". This is a choice between no funky results with a 2D Fourier analysis vs a better image quality.

By the way, I'm not aware of any 2D Fourier analysis showing a loss of detail. And yes, I'm including Bill Claff's work.

[Class A]

Just shoot RAW ISO400 or lower and accelerator won't kick in.

The K-new has been announced as applying image-processing at ISO 100 already.
It may mean nothing, though, if it is optional.

Certainly not worth years of complaining on forum.

Who has been "complaining" for years?

I was initially 100% neutral.
Then I only suggested that not everyone will love a mandatory "accelerator unit"; I said that I would even use it myself sometimes.
Next, I provided arguments against the position that there is "nothing not to like". While it may be true that under many circumstances other effects will be stronger, it is undeniable that the "accelerator unit" has an effect that some find positive and others find detrimental, at least in some applications.

In all this, my intention is to hope for the best for Pentax.
Do I personally care what DPReview thinks about a Pentax camera? Not in the slightest.
Do I care if Pentax unnecessarily loses customers whether they make up their own mind against RAW baking or whether a sensationalizing article makes them turn their back? Yes, I do.
Is it necessary to lose some to win more?
It absolutely is not.

In summary, I'm someone who wants the best for Pentax and wants everyone to be happy with their choice, whether they are an "accelerator unit" lover or hater.

The result: I get comments mentioning "bordering obsession" and "years of complaining".
What is so difficult about letting someone else's view stand without attacking them?

this topic is getting way to much exposure.

Why bring it up then, again? I suggested to let it rest for the thread, but because it is getting too much exposure, it needs to be addressed again? In this thread?

I'm out.

[beachgardener]

Thanks OoKU for this thread, very happy with the content in the YouTube videos, looking forward to the K-new, pleased that there is no tilt screen, don't know if it is touch or not, but I don't need touch screen, and so so so pleased about the new optical viewfinder and prism, certainly don't need the hybrid and electronic rubbish.
Might even pre order this one.