[Zygonyx]

This is what is causing big problems in the camera industry. Cell phone cameras are getting better and better. They have wiped out the consumer P&S market, now they are going after the bridge camera/ entry level DSLR market.
The companies that are getting beaten up the worst are the big three, Nikon, Canon and Sony, as their business model is based on huge volume sales of low end products.
That market is in free fall.
The companies that are less affected are the ones that are less dependent on high volume sales, such as Pentax.
If you are still wondering why all these camera companies seem to be going upscale, now you know why. They are merely following their market.

This is quite true, but franckly the "consumer masses' new uses" are unbeliveably boring and limited if you wanna do something else than family / candid / standard landscaping.

[Wheatfield]

This is quite true, but franckly the "consumer masses' new uses" are unbeliveably boring and limited if you wanna do something else than family / candid / standard landscaping.

It's been that way, in some way, since the early 1960s at least. Kodak introduced the 126 cartridge in 1963, and that really democratized photography. I don't think there are any new uses, per se, it's just that cell phone cameras are moving a very large portion of the market from stand alone cameras to multi use devices.

[LeeRunge]

This is what is causing big problems in the camera industry. Cell phone cameras are getting better and better. They have wiped out the consumer P&S market, now they are going after the bridge camera/ entry level DSLR market.
The companies that are getting beaten up the worst are the big three, Nikon, Canon and Sony, as their business model is based on huge volume sales of low end products.
That market is in free fall.
The companies that are less affected are the ones that are less dependent on high volume sales, such as Pentax.
If you are still wondering why all these camera companies seem to be going upscale, now you know why. They are merely following their market.

If you haven't seen this thread then have a look. The Iphone 12 is better than a DSLR - Page 15 - PentaxForums.com. I've been posting what the 12 pro max looks like alongside my other cameras. It's flat out beating all of them hand held in extreme low light. You now need a tripod to get better shots than a cell phone in the dark. They just released ProRaw this week so I'll see how that stacks up against my full frame cameras. It's looking like it'll be just as usable for edits, but 12mp. These phone cameras are getting to be on par/better for image results now with the best ILC cameras. They still don't have the controls or speed to work with but the 12mp end results are extremely similar, or in the case of low light better in certain circumstances than you'll get with an ILC. Computational photography techniques are getting huge results out of small sensors. Camera company's need to utilize these techniques somehow i think, that may involve some symbiosis with the phone to harness that processor as it's probably to expensive too manufacture a camera with that.

[Mistral75]

Sorry – Australian cultural reference (Crocodile Dundee).

I've seen the film and liked it very much. I'm afraid my own reference was more 'under the belt'.

[reh321]

It's been that way, in some way, since the early 1960s at least. Kodak introduced the 126 cartridge in 1963, and that really democratized photography. I don't think there are any new uses, per se, it's just that cell phone cameras are moving a very large portion of the market from stand alone cameras to multi use devices.

Actually, it may be more complicated than that.

In the 1970's, I knew a female grad student who owned a camera using 110 cartridge film. At the same time, my Mother also owned a camera using 110 cartridge film.

In the early 1980's, the former grad student was now a librarian in a school, and because of influences there, she switched to a K1000.
At the same time, because she was now a Grandmother {my niece was born first}, my Mother purchased a Canon " AE-1 Program" SLR camera.

Around 2000, the former grad student purchased a small digital camera. I don't know much about it, because I saw it only at a birthday party thrown in my honor.
Around that same time, my Dad purchased a small digital camera for my Mother; when she died, I looked at it just enough to see "AAA" batteries corroding in it, and then threw it in the trash.

I have not see the former grad student in fifteen years, but I would guess she is using a smart phone now.
My Mother was not enough 'with it' to use smart phones before she died almost three years ago.

So, I believe that there was a time when SLR cameras were valued because of their flexibility, but that was not the major consideration.
The former grad student could get tutoring from other faculty, and my Mother did get instruction at the camera store where she shopped,
but once digital cameras came out, cost became the most important feature - and nothing is cheaper that the smart phone you are already using for other reasons.

[Breakfastographer]

I've seen the film and liked it very much. I'm afraid my own reference was more 'under the belt'.

Like a croc leather one, you mean?

[Wheatfield]

Actually, it may be more complicated than that.

In the 1970's, I knew a female grad student who owned a camera using 110 cartridge film. At the same time, my Mother also owned a camera using 110 cartridge film.

In the early 1980's, the former grad student was now a librarian in a school, and because of influences there, she switched to a K1000.
At the same time, because she was now a Grandmother {my niece was born first}, my Mother purchased a Canon " AE-1 Program" SLR camera.

Around 2000, the former grad student purchased a small digital camera. I don't know much about it, because I saw it only at a birthday party thrown in my honor.
Around that same time, my Dad purchased a small digital camera for my Mother; when she died, I looked at it just enough to see "AAA" batteries corroding in it, and then threw it in the trash.

I have not see the former grad student in fifteen years, but I would guess she is using a smart phone now.
My Mother was not enough 'with it' to use smart phones before she died almost three years ago.

So, I believe that there was a time when SLR cameras were valued because of their flexibility, but that was not the major consideration.
The former grad student could get tutoring from other faculty, and my Mother did get instruction at the camera store where she shopped,
but once digital cameras came out, cost became the most important feature - and nothing is cheaper that the smart phone you are already using for other reasons.

That was the whole point, and no, it isn't especially complicated. Simple, easy to use cartridge cameras were nothing more than a modern for the time version of the early Kodaks that came preloaded with film, and were returned to the customer reloaded with film.
Kodak's byline at that time was "you push the button, we do the rest".
The cartridge camera was a reinvention of that. Now the customer got to keep the camera, Kodak made it as easy to use as possible, and the customer still just had to push the button, and Kodak did the rest.
Kodak was very good at reinventing that wheel. By the 1980s, they were pumping out single use point and shoot cameras by the millions. By the time I left the lab industry in 2006, fully 90% of what we took in for film was single use cameras.

For the great majority of people, that did just fine. They weren't interested in creating grand landscape photographs, or soul searching portraits. They were interested in documenting the mundane highlights of their life, nothing more, they certainly didn't want the size, weight, or relative complexity of an SLR, and didn't even see the value in a lowly point and shoot.

A lot of people got sucked into the SLR camera because it "was more flexible" only to have the thing spend almost it's entire life sitting at the back of a closet, to only be pulled out at Christmas, or some other family event. The average SLR "kit" from the 1970s right through to the 1990s when digital moved film out of the way was a body, standard lens and a shoe mount flash. Eventually the standard lens was supplanted by a cheap 35-70 zoom lens, but the "flexibility" of the SLR was rarely taken advantage of by probably 98% of SLR customers.

When I was working in labs, it wasn't unusual to get films in with more than one Christmas celebration separated by a few birthday cakes.
The flexibility, as you noted, wasn't a consideration. What separated the SLR image from one taken by a point and shoot was often how crowded the SLR picture looked because the SLR had a 50mm lens, the point and shoots had 35mm lenses.

The bulk of SLR customers were victims of enthusiastic sales people upselling way beyond a customer's need. The bulk of SLR customers had been sold very expensive frustrations packaged as cameras. It wasn't what they necessarily wanted in the long run, and certainly wasn't what they were going to use to full advantage. They went to the store to get something that would take pictures. The blister packed Kodak X-15 would have served them just fine, but by the time they walked out of the store, they were convinced that an auto exposure SLR was what they needed.
By the time they had figured out that it wasn't, they were long past the return period, and their shiny camera was relegated to the closet because it was too complicated, too heavy, or just too much of a pain to deal with.

The camera built into a cell phone is the perfect camera for that vast majority of people. It's with them all the time, it gives decent enough results, and like those old Kodak's, all the customer has to do is push the button and let someone else do the rest.

The "advanced" camera is dying because people have never really wanted to own one, and now they have a legitimate choice in what came from their phone company.

[ffking]

^^ - totally!

SLRs and now MILCs were always tools for serious photographers that briefly became fashionable and are now settling back into their normal place.

[Erictator]

That was the whole point, and no, it isn't especially complicated. Simple, easy to use cartridge cameras were nothing more than a modern for the time version of the early Kodaks that came preloaded with film, and were returned to the customer reloaded with film.
Kodak's byline at that time was "you push the button, we do the rest".
The cartridge camera was a reinvention of that. Now the customer got to keep the camera, Kodak made it as easy to use as possible, and the customer still just had to push the button, and Kodak did the rest.
Kodak was very good at reinventing that wheel. By the 1980s, they were pumping out single use point and shoot cameras by the millions. By the time I left the lab industry in 2006, fully 90% of what we took in for film was single use cameras.

For the great majority of people, that did just fine. They weren't interested in creating grand landscape photographs, or soul searching portraits. They were interested in documenting the mundane highlights of their life, nothing more, they certainly didn't want the size, weight, or relative complexity of an SLR, and didn't even see the value in a lowly point and shoot.

A lot of people got sucked into the SLR camera because it "was more flexible" only to have the thing spend almost it's entire life sitting at the back of a closet, to only be pulled out at Christmas, or some other family event. The average SLR "kit" from the 1970s right through to the 1990s when digital moved film out of the way was a body, standard lens and a shoe mount flash. Eventually the standard lens was supplanted by a cheap 35-70 zoom lens, but the "flexibility" of the SLR was rarely taken advantage of by probably 98% of SLR customers.

When I was working in labs, it wasn't unusual to get films in with more than one Christmas celebration separated by a few birthday cakes.
The flexibility, as you noted, wasn't a consideration. What separated the SLR image from one taken by a point and shoot was often how crowded the SLR picture looked because the SLR had a 50mm lens, the point and shoots had 35mm lenses.

The bulk of SLR customers were victims of enthusiastic sales people upselling way beyond a customer's need. The bulk of SLR customers had been sold very expensive frustrations packaged as cameras. It wasn't what they necessarily wanted in the long run, and certainly wasn't what they were going to use to full advantage. They went to the store to get something that would take pictures. The blister packed Kodak X-15 would have served them just fine, but by the time they walked out of the store, they were convinced that an auto exposure SLR was what they needed.
By the time they had figured out that it wasn't, they were long past the return period, and their shiny camera was relegated to the closet because it was too complicated, too heavy, or just too much of a pain to deal with.

The camera built into a cell phone is the perfect camera for that vast majority of people. It's with them all the time, it gives decent enough results, and like those old Kodak's, all the customer has to do is push the button and let someone else do the rest.

The "advanced" camera is dying because people have never really wanted to own one, and now they have a legitimate choice in what came from their phone company.

^^^ Yup! I think I was moved out and married almost 5 years before my mom visits and hands me some pic's in a Kodak mailer envelope and said "Oh, I finally got around to sending a few rolls I had in for developing, these are the one's you took on my camera". LOL!

[RobA_Oz]

I've seen the film and liked it very much. I'm afraid my own reference was more 'under the belt'.

How did I miss that?

[Mistral75]

How did I miss that?

'Cause you're a Goody Two Shoes?

[Class A]

Sorry, you cannot ask people to prove your statements.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the "accelerator unit" can not be separated from the image pipeline.

The "accelerator unit" is a chip which processes digital signals. Instead of processing the digital data coming from the Sony sensor, it could instead directly be fed to the PRIME processor. It is obvious to anyone with an engineering background that while at most a redesign of the "accelerator unit" chip might be necessary, there is zero hurdle whatsoever in principle to bypass it or operate it in neutral mode.

The claim that no one would have complained about the K-1 II, if the K-1 had not been available for comparisons, has no leg to stand on as the image manipulation can be detected by spatial frequency analysis without any reference model. DxOMark has been detecting smoothing of RAW data from Pentax cameras long before the "accelerator unit" was introduced. The difference between this type of denoising and the "accelerator unit" behaviour is that previously RAW data manipulation did not start before ISO 1600. In other words, it was in line with other manufacturers did who also manipulate their RAW data but not in the lower ISO regions.

If that is a too technical view for some, I clearly remember a forum member (MJKoski) presenting images of some dead animal, strongly complaining how much the fur detail had been smeared by the K-1 II. Visual comparisons to cameras using the same sensor (e.g., Nikon D800) are also capable of revealing some loss of detail in some circumstances (the dust on the PCBs on images published by pentaxforums.com springs to mind; the K-1 II clearly smeared that a bit).

The tip to underexpose and then push in post, exploiting the ISO-invariance of Sony sensors, is appreciated but there are not only the disadvantages that have been pointed out by @Breakfastographer but the K-1 III will throw a spanner in the works. It will engage the processing at ISO 100 level already.

As for the topic of the "accelerator unit" being a perennial bone of contention, it would help tremendously if its supporters would just acknowledge that unadulterated RAW data has advantages for some and then moved on, simply stating that they personally don't mind or even prefer the baked RAW data, instead of accusing people with a different view as seeing ghosts or being (I quote) "disingenuous".

Personally, I'm happy for everyone who purely enjoys the "accelerator unit" and I don't contest that they see no loss of detail and only see benefits. That's 100% fine by me. What is not OK for anyone is to make unsustainable claims about how the "accelerator unit" is an "integral part of the image pipeline" to the extent that it could not be removed without causing image deterioration (or similar) and that anyone who sees potential downsides is only imagining the latter.

[Class A]

The Pentax engineers say it cannot be done.

The CP+ 2019 interview you are referring to was held with Tetsuya Iwasaki who at least then was a manager, not an engineer.

Furthermore, Iwasaki-san said (according to the transcript)

"However, this issue with the Accelerator is not just a matter of an on/off switch and I think it is difficult to deal with it." (emphasis is mine)

Note that "I think..." communicates some amount of uncertainty, let alone that "difficult" does not mean "impossible". I don't hold it against a manager to make such statements. They should not be construed as being positive affirmations coming from an engineer, though.

FWIW, in the same breath Iwasaki-san said

"But it's also the case that on certain subjects, results without the accelerator unit can be better."

Perhaps, if his statement about the disabling the "accelerator unit" is given any weight, the remark about the advantages of forgoing the "accelerator unit" should also being given credit (as opposed to claiming that no one in their right mind would ever want to turn the unit off).

[Zygonyx]

Actually, and independently of any feasibility problem, i would find a menu choice regarding denoising with or without accelerator, pretty usefull.

[Serkevan]

the K-1 III will throw a spanner in the works. It will engage the processing at ISO 100 level already.

We don't know that yet. The mentioned image quality improvements at low ISO might be coming from a different place: tweaking of the JPG engine, the fact that the sensor has slightly improved resolution, etc. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that the Pentax engineers will induce detail smearing noise reduction at the ISO where IQ = detail, while claiming to improve IQ. It's clear that the accelerator does not apply a flat amount of NR regardless of ISO, so I'd say "let's wait and see what images the camera takes".