[normhead]

The K-3iii is a new chip and affects the images right down to 100 ISO. It says it's a stop better, but doesn't say a stop better than what. I assume it's the old accelerator chip. If it gets me two more stops per my k-3, that could mean instead of K-3 f8 1/250s 200 ISO, I could shoot at K-3iii ƒ8 800 ISO 1/1000s with similar results. That would be huge.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-30-2020 at 12:26 PM.

[taks]

Honestly, I just shoot as usual, and enjoy it as usual.In recent interviews, "fun" is a word often used by Pentax representatives.

Thank you reh321 for the explanation and sharing your experience.

[normhead]

Great advise! I guess I am failing to understand the issue some people have with the accelerator chip.

It's there, we know about it, that makes it a target. If Pentax never said it was in there, I don't think any would have said "what's going on here" without graphs like the one above. The biggest complaint I've seen is the folks who say "I want to do everything myself." and see the chip as an insult to sensor purity. Even though sensor purity can't be defined and is largely a myth. Only output matters. If you get better output, it's all good. And the accelerator chip cameras have better output. Everyone who's done a camera compare at Imaging Resources knows that.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ? Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

[reh321]

For me, the 'accelerator' has made 'TAv' mode usable.

With my K-30, I kept ISO below 800; I allow my KP to go to ISO=12000 or higher. Last night I allowed it to float up to 18000; at that level, low amounts of monotonic noise is visible, but for me, it was better than not taking the photo.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/414555-nature-american-robin.html

[taks]

The biggest complaint I've seen is the folks who say "I want to do everything myself." and see the chip as an insult to sensor purity.

I am not getting why the complaint. I am thinking if one doesn't like the chip, just shoot low ISO where accelerator doesn't kick in and deal with it in post. I must be missing something.

[Rondec]

I am not getting why the complaint. I am thinking if one doesn't like the chip, just shoot low ISO where accelerator doesn't kick in and deal with it in post. I must be missing something.

People get upset because they are all about "purity in RAW images." They feel that anything that is done below the surface to the RAW image is problematic. Just as you wouldn't apply lens adjustments to the RAW image, you shouldn't apply, even a very low level, noise reduction to that image.

I understand their perspective, although as you say, most of important images are shot at low iso on a tripod, where it doesn't matter and at really high iso, there isn't really extra detail, just noise. So it is the iso 800 to 3200 range where you might, if you have a ton of skill, be able to squeeze a hair more detail out of a K-1 image versus a K-1 II image while still getting rid of the same amount of noise. For me, it saves time and has no down side in the real world.

[normhead]

For me, it saves time and has no down side in the real world.

Some people just think more difficult is better. The work ethic taken to extremes. Work is good, so I should make more of it, to do the same thing. At least that's the way it appears at times.

The logical extension of the 5 year old... "I want to do it myself." It may not be better, but at least I did it. This is really important ideology when learning to tie your shoes, but totally inappropriate in photography.

[Rondec]

Some people just think more difficult is better. The work ethic taken to extremes. Work is good, so I should make more of it, to do the same thing. At least that's the way it appears at times.

The logical extension of the 5 year old... "I want to do it myself." It may not be better, but at least I did it. This is really important ideology when learning to tie your shoes, but totally inappropriate in photography.

It is the concept that if you are willing to put in ten minutes of time on each image, you might be able to get a smidgeon more detail out. I do question how many iso 1600 images would you spend that much time on, but I would be fine if Pentax came up with a way to turn the accelerator off for those who hate it conceptually.

[reh321]

Some people just think more difficult is better. The work ethic taken to extremes. Work is good, so I should make more of it, to do the same thing. At least that's the way it appears at times.

The logical extension of the 5 year old... "I want to do it myself." It may not be better, but at least I did it. This is really important ideology when learning to tie your shoes, but totally inappropriate in photography.

We encounter the same logic in various places, such as preferring 'M' mode to 'Av', 'Tv', 'TAv', 'P' modes, or preferring manual focus to automated focus. My personal preference is to have the camera do what it can, and leave for me what it cannot do {such as selecting from where to take the photo and what framing should be used}. I still remember my joy at discovering KA-mount cameras, which made the equivalent of 'Tv' mode possible {my first SLR camera - a "ME/SE" - required that I find the aperture which gave a shutter speed above 1/250 when photographing a moving train}, and then switching to Canon in 1995 because I liked their EF/usm mount so much better than the screw-drive being used my Nikon and Pentax at the time when I was ready to go to auto-focus.

[taks]

it is the iso 800 to 3200 range where you might,

I don't mean to drag on about the accelerator chip, but would like to take away the chip from being a "con" on the K3iii if possible. ( I want this camera to succeed) Isn't an image taken at ISO800 exactly the same as the image taken at ISO100 and then increased 3 stops in post in a camera without an accelerator chip? So if you needed ISO 800 to get the right exposure and if you don't want the effect from the accelerator chip, wouldn't taking the image at ISO 100 and boosting 3 stop in post get an ISO 800 image without the effect of the chip? Wouldn't it effectively turn off the accelerator chip if the purist wanted to?

[gatorguy]

I don't mean to drag on about the accelerator chip, but would like to take away the chip from being a "con" on the K3iii if possible. ( I want this camera to succeed) Isn't an image taken at ISO800 exactly the same as the image taken at ISO100 and then increased 3 stops in post in a camera without an accelerator chip? So if you needed ISO 800 to get the right exposure and if you don't want the effect from the accelerator chip, wouldn't taking the image at ISO 100 and boosting 3 stop in post get an ISO 800 image without the effect of the chip? Wouldn't it effectively turn off the accelerator chip if the purist wanted to?

On the upcoming K3 III I think the accelerator will always be in use, even at ISO100. On the KP and K-70 I thought I remembered it doesn't kick in until iSO800 but someone else might know for certain.

I had looked into this a few months ago and could not find a recent model digital SLR or MILC from Canon or Nikon or Sony that didn't also "process" the RAW images for noise at least a bit. Smart longtime engineers and camera designers seem to generally agree it's a good thing.

Anyway, please avoid dragging the accelerator good/bad discussion in as a primary talking point here. It isn't and many of us really would like to avoid a contentious disagreement that has no answer. It's been talked to death in too many threads already and it's nearly always the same members at odds.

So lets not go there OK?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I'm also not disputing that the "accelerator unit" can alter the colours such that they are closer to the original in some cases. For instance, if the unaltered image suffers from a bit from desaturation, the "accelerator unit" can push the colour back to a more saturated state.

One of the problems is that color has everything to do with how the raw data( measurements collected behind a filter mask) is processed into a color space. The process of converting a raw file into a color is not part of the sensor.
There is also the problem of what people think of as color accuracy, and if we look at images profiled for the best color accuracy they often are the least pleasing images to look at and this is why manufactures have their own look to how the raw files are processed into a color space.

There is also the problem and I always find it funny that people will tell you that yes my camera captures the image very accurately and show you with a s rgb file.
Even when just using the limited colors found in a Color Checker SG target you would be surprised to see how much falls outside of the S RGB colorspace

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

The wire frame is the S RGB space and all the dots are data created from the published colors from color checker sg

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Here it is in compared to Adobe RGB

[termy]

My requirements are good tracking autofocus, higher frame rate, quicker buffer clearing, and at least KP levels of high ISO performance.

If the early reviews say that the autofocus is leaps and bounds ahead of the K-3ii I'll probably pre-order. If they're kind of on the fence I might wait a little longer.

More or less similar.

So long the "improved AF" (AFC and Tracking) is around that of D750, good enough, will go for a K-3-3 (although will have to wait some time for prices to come down).

Am hopeful that it can definitely match D750's AFC / AF tracking.

With the release of the specs, this thing on "Improved AF" is about the only thing left.
Other aspects such as fps, buffer, fixed screen, 2card slots etc, is as good as fixed.

[DamienW]

Isn't an image taken at ISO800 exactly the same as the image taken at ISO100 and then increased 3 stops in post in a camera without an accelerator chip?

Depends on the hardware. One would hope that the camera could do a slightly better job of it. There's lots of talk of ISO Invariance at this day (where increasing the ISO in your camera is pretty much no different to using post processing). Seems to be very few articles actually quoting actual lab results for any particular camera (lots of subjective observations about though). Roger Clark has some decent articles around this stuff.

Seems that all of the super crazy high ISO settings on modern cameras are likely using 'simulated' high ISO, meaning it is simply multiplying the digital values just like your post processing software would. This of course would be completely ISO invariant - indeed if the post software is clever enough, it may even do a better job of things.

At low ISO's though, my understanding is that your camera is likely using analogue gain to increase the charge presented to the digital converter. It makes sense to use this to get the signal (after gain) well above the noise that may be introduced later in the chain. This might only be effective up to something like 1600 or 3200 ISO.

For all intents and purposes, the K-3 III sensor might be close enough to invariant that nobody can tell anyway. So I guess pick whatever pleases you. I prefer to still set my ISO's on my K-1ii up to about 3200 max as required...I assume anything else is obsolete and can be done in post process. I think it's always better, if possible, just to get more light in somehow anyway.

[DamienW]

My take on this camera...I like what I see. I loved my K5ii in the hand. No other camera I've ever used has felt as good (admittedly, I've never had hands on a high end Nikon though). To my mind, if the K-3iii offers even a slightly enhanced experience over that, it will be a camera I would enjoy using very much.

Sensor and processing engine sound like they might improve on such as we've seen in the KP, and I felt that the KP already had excellent IQ. So the resolution isn't hugely more than the K3ii had, but then I think we're starting to get up towards the theoretical limits of these things. You can always pack in more photo sites, but is there any point when you're approaching diffraction limits at reasonable apertures?

Lack of a tilt screen...well...not a deal breaker for me. I like a tilt screen (dislike fully articulated screens), but I also appreciate the additional ruggedness that a fixed screen should offer. It merely would have been nice to have.

Viewfinder will be interesting. One thing I appreciate in my mirrorless cameras is the ability to see the scene in difficult conditions. A brighter and larger viewfinder is always welcome.

Focus tracking won't be a big issue for me...but any improvement is always welcome.

Video performance is nice to have, but really, I think the Micro Four Thirds cameras I have do an excellent enough job for me in that area.

Really, the big things for me are build, IQ, and ergonomics. I guess that's a large part of why anybody comes to enjoy using Pentax anyway. Anything else is gravy.

I won't be buying one immediately, but I think it's a strong likelihood that I might consider picking one up after it's been on the market for a bit. It would make a nice supplementary body to my K1ii (and a little smaller).