[Breakfastographer]

Yeah and that's clearly a clear majority of Pentax shooters on Pentax Forums. Why incessantly complain about something that isn't going to be changed by Ricoh/Pentax just deal with it.

Why incessantly reply?

I seriously doubt anyone or even you would take that advice simply because you were in a sizeable minority. I've outlined how much of an oddity it is that this seems to be the only thing you can't disable, and that I've heard no plausible reason for it. All we have is handwaving suggestions that it might be "a little difficult" or some such. One could easily be left feeling that it is merely inconvenient, but so is adding any other feature. And that's what it is - the ability to turn something on and off is a feature. And if one were smart about it, one could market it as such.

[MikeyBugs95]

You will lose details at higher ISO regardless of accelerator. If there were no consequences for higher gain, we wouldn't be complaining about noise .
The only comparisons would be to either take a K-1ii and shoot twice:
- at ISO 100 grossly underexposed

- at ISO 3200 or so, properly exposed

Or to take a K-1 and K-1ii, shoot side by side, and see if there's any difference at, for example, ISO 12800 (Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review).

IMO any difference is minute and does not detract from the image.

Honestly, I don't see much of any difference. If anything, I see MORE detail from the K-1 II than the K-1. In all honesty, the bickering about the accelerator is all pedantic and seems aimed purely at degrading and bashing the brand for few reasons other than the bash. If someone wants to get "pure RAW" in any camera then they'll have to order a run of sensors direct from Sony and jerry rig it into the camera of their choice. Or just use film and develop it themselves.

[reh321]

Why incessantly reply?

I seriously doubt anyone or even you would take that advice simply because you were in a sizeable minority. I've outlined how much of an oddity it is that this seems to be the only thing you can't disable, and that I've heard no plausible reason for it. All we have is handwaving suggestions that it might be "a little difficult" or some such. One could easily be left feeling that it is merely inconvenient, but so is adding any other feature. And that's what it is - the ability to turn something on and off is a feature. And if one were smart about it, one could market it as such.

The image data passes through the 'accelerator' on its way to the processor, which is different from how other functions are accomplished.
Perhaps 'turning it off' would create noisier images than the sensor does.
In any case, the question has been raised with Pentax, and it has been answered, but people still harp on this issue incessantly.
Canon may create pure 'raw' files.

[Larrymc]

Why incessantly reply?

I seriously doubt anyone or even you would take that advice simply because you were in a sizeable minority. I've outlined how much of an oddity it is that this seems to be the only thing you can't disable, and that I've heard no plausible reason for it. All we have is handwaving suggestions that it might be "a little difficult" or some such. One could easily be left feeling that it is merely inconvenient, but so is adding any other feature. And that's what it is - the ability to turn something on and off is a feature. And if one were smart about it, one could market it as such.

The plausible reason is Ricoh/Pentax does not want to disable it, secondly they don't owe you an explanation about anything they do. You can either accept that reality or keep tilting at windmills, its your choice.

Have a nice day!

[Breakfastographer]

The plausible reason is Ricoh/Pentax does not want to disable it, secondly they don't owe you an explanation about anything they do. You can either accept that reality or keep tilting at windmills, its your choice.

Just like I don't owe anybody a purchase. But I'm willing to engage. Others will just read the DPR review and turn away from the brand.

[MarkJerling]

As this thread has now so thoroughly derailed from it's original purpose, is there any reason to keep it going?

[luftfluss]

As this thread has now so thoroughly derailed from it's original purpose, is there any reason to keep it going?

IMO, "Nope".

[Larrymc]

As this thread has now so thoroughly derailed from it's original purpose, is there any reason to keep it going?

Shut_er down!!

[Class A]

Perhaps 'turning it off' would create noisier images than the sensor does.

This makes zero sense.

The sensor delivers a digital data stream (ones and zeros). These cannot represent "noisier images" by being left unchanged.

FWIW, observing basic facts is not "brand bashing". I find it disheartening that one has to endure insults like that just for keeping the facts straight.

[reh321]

As this thread has now so thoroughly derailed from it's original purpose, is there any reason to keep it going?

No, those opposed to the 'accelerator' will continue to rant - thinking of new arguments - as long as you keep it open,

[reh321]

This makes zero sense.

The sensor delivers a digital data stream (ones and zeros). These cannot represent "noisier images" by being left unchanged.

FWIW, observing basic facts is not "brand bashing". I find it disheartening that one has to endure insults like that just for keeping the facts straight.

This makes at least as much sense at your rants do.

We do not know what experiments have shown - a digital stream can have incorrect elements added to it just like any other electronic stream can.

You are not "keeping facts straight" - you are making up 'facts' of things that neither of us can be certain of.

[MMVIII]

This makes zero sense.

The sensor delivers a digital data stream (ones and zeros). These cannot represent "noisier images" by being left unchanged.

FWIW, observing basic facts is not "brand bashing". I find it disheartening that one has to endure insults like that just for keeping the facts straight.

This would be sad. I value and respect your contributions and I see the passion you are showing.
Still, the only fact here is that the processing pipeline in the K-1II and KP can not be changed by the user to bypass a hardware component. Why they (Ricoh) do it is speculation and only they could provide a reason for it.. When asked if they might change that, they said this would not easily be done. When talking about cameras to come, they stressed the fact that a similar hardware design will be used and it might even help to achieve what they consider the best RAW image quality the designers and engineers can achieve beginning from ISO 100. If they will make a part of it a user choice remains to be seen. I don't think so. They seem to be confident and convinced that this brings the best quality.

The dpr assessment was flawed and exaggerated. Especially as many have realised who e.g. compared the visual output not only to the K-1 but e.g. to the Z7II or R6. The output of the some year old K-1 sensor is capable to not only keep up with them but even surpass them in some areas. Both processing hardware varants! Isn't that what counts? If in 5 years there would be a theoretical algorithm that could bring even more details into the noisier K-1 RAWs, then the K-1II would still offer more details than the images of one of theblatest Canikons. By the way, such an algorithm might just be possible with the use of neural networks and these would adapt to any form of noise reduction, by doing assumptions how the content should look like

[krazykat]

This makes zero sense.

The sensor delivers a digital data stream (ones and zeros). These cannot represent "noisier images" by being left unchanged.

FWIW, observing basic facts is not "brand bashing". I find it disheartening that one has to endure insults like that just for keeping the facts straight.

Sorry, this is completely incorrect. Noise can be digital.

[MarkJerling]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's been fun.
But this is no longer about the new K-3iii, not even tangentially.