[sbh]

In my view, you can also tell because the C1 product design lost its way. I'm no longer the strong C1 supporter I once was because I lost pretty much all trust in the product design team.

Similar thoughts here. Although I haven't made the exact same experience as you, I do think that C1 has lost much of it's steam. Also, customer support, feedback/communication was excellent around version 7-10 and the upgrade price as tripled since. However, today I am still using Capture One 11 mainly as a fast file browser and Session manager but do most post processing in Silypix DS Pro 10 which has had great improvements in the last two years (except for the slow browsing on my 6 year old Mac).

On the upcoming K3 III I think the accelerator will always be in use, even at ISO100.

I think so as well. They have some good experience with it now. Image quality is one of their main drivers and they will continue working on it imho. I'm really excited about how it will be in daily use.

---

Last edited by sbh; 11-01-2020 at 05:05 AM.

[Kunzite]

[*]DPReview will always complain about something that isn't a mirrorless camera from their darling companies. However, there is no need to hand them ammunition on a silver plate. If the K-3 III will doctor RAW data starting from ISO 100 with no option to avoid that behaviour, DPReview will make sure its readers will know about it. Forget about any awards, this will be the death sentence for any appreciative review. As much as some people here believe DPReview has no impact on sales, with the amount of exposure DPReview achieves and the influence it has on dealers, etc., there is no doubt in my mind that Pentax will be losing some sales as a result of a damming DPReview "review". [/LIST]

what is handing them ammunition is the endless wild claims about detail "loss", "smoothing" and other such things. It's not the accelerator, but the fact that some Pentaxians are bashing the accelerator, pushing the idea that the camera has an inferior image quality than it could have.
Image quality is one of Pentax' strengths. One would think otherwise, reading posts such as yours.

Aaaand... guess who opened this discussion on the DPR's Pentax SLR Talk Forum, effectively handing them ammunition to bash the K-3 Mark III in the upcoming review!

Come on, don't you think it's past time to move on?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

If you have ever seen a wide gamut monitor (which can display even larger colour spaces than AdobeRGB) then you know how stark the difference between greens and reds is when switching between sRGB and full gamut.

Also important is some of the blues that are even found with most images that contain the sky

---------- Post added 10-31-2020 at 01:07 PM ----------

The most simple experiment is to think about how often you have in real life ever thought "that white in the shadows looks blue".

I see it all the time take a white piece of paper and place a 45 bend into it and then place the top face at right angles to the sun, while looking at the top surface notice the lower 45 surface. To me I can see that it has a cooler tint and this is even when the 45 surface is still be illuminated by the direct sun

[Class A]

I believe you do; it seems to be your favorite subject...

It's not my favourite subject and we might be able to leave it if you could drop it.

what is handing them ammunition is the endless wild claims about detail "loss", "smoothing" and other such things. It's not the accelerator, but the fact that some Pentaxians are bashing the accelerator, pushing the idea that the camera has an inferior image quality than it could have.

Such nonsense; just read their review of the K-1 II again and let me know where they point to users (on pentaxforums.com or elsewhere) making claims about image degradation or users "bashing the accelerator". You'll only find their own analysis (most of it hopelessly exaggerated). They comment on sample images they took and the image analyses by Bill Claff; they are clearly not driven by what any users have to say.

Image quality is one of Pentax' strengths. One would think otherwise, reading posts such as yours.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

Please point me to any of my posts where I supposedly bash Pentax image quality. I provided some examples -- some might say "exotic examples" because they don't do deep sky stacking, for instance, or they never develop RAW images again, once they have processed them -- where the use of in-camera image processing is counter indicated. These statements are factually true and have nothing to do with doing any injustice to Pentax image quality.

I love my K-1 and could work with the K-1 II as well; I'd just prefer the latter gave me the option to forgo the image processing. FWIW, that would be easy to do. The "accelerator unit" does not process "signals", it crunches numbers. Simply leaving the numbers untouched would forgo the processing. It is as simple as that. Anyone who wants to claim a complicated scheme where engineers somehow moved some PRIME engine processing to the "accelerator unit" and have convoluted the computations such that the regular processing and the "accelerator unit" image processing are now inextricably interwoven (but only starting with ISO 640; not before) should provide some evidence. In the absence of such evidence, Occam's razor tells you that the straightforward engineering approach ("accelerator unit" is a digital signal processor which can optionally perform image manipulations) is the preferred assumption.

[MMVIII]

Aaaand... guess who opened this discussion on the DPR's Pentax SLR Talk Forum, effectively handing them ammunition to bash the K-3 Mark III in the upcoming review!

Come on, don't you think it's past time to move on?

Indeed. I also think so. Class A, your intentions may be noble, but do you really think you have any impact on the development of imaging technology that engineers at Ricoh choose to put into their cameras?
Keeping this topic vivid especially with the mythical narrative of "pure RAW" is just , sorry, naive. The only solution that would give you an opportunity to accept that would be an explicit exclusion of an integral part of a fine tuned and well tested system by those who have all the specifications and real raw data at hand and whose decisions are taken with best image quality in mind that can be provided by hard and software. I doubt this will happen, what will you do then? Criticise it, out of fear that others might criticise it? How about insisting on proof beyond a gut feeling? "Stareater on steroids" - how about calling out someone who is claiming that to prove it?

After having seen comparisons of the latest srnsors in FF(mirrorless) cameras with the good old K1(II) in 2020: it still wins on so many levels that any discussion on that detail seems pathetic.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight...05702344534529

[Kunzite]

It's not my favourite subject and we might be able to leave it if you could drop it.

I didn't start discussing it on DPR. I'm not responsible for what you are doing.

Such nonsense; just read their review of the K-1 II again and let me know where they point to users (on pentaxforums.com or elsewhere) making claims about image degradation or users "bashing the accelerator". You'll only find their own analysis (most of it hopelessly exaggerated). They comment on sample images they took and the image analyses by Bill Claff; they are clearly not driven by what any users have to say.

All they needed was Bill Claff's chart, to claim "Star Eater on steroids"; there was nothing in the actual images. What do you think will happen, when users are making claims about image degradation, when they keep saying, "look, they're doing the same but from ISO 100"?
The camera's design is final. What are you trying to accomplish, by shedding doubt on its image quality without seeing even one image?

I won't continue this as we're way too close to a thread closure. I hope you'll reevaluate your approach, but I'm afraid you won't.
Have a nice evening.

[Sandy Hancock]

Settle down, folks. Play nicely.
There's plenty of room in the naughty corner for those who can't....

[6BQ5]

Wow! I log in after a long, long break and see 39 pages of posts here. The K-3 III is definitely generating some excitement. That's good!

I have no doubt the camera will be well built, be very ergo-friendly, and possess excellent image quality. This is a Pentax so all that is a given.

I would pay more attention to the focusing system. How accurate, reactive, and predictive will it be? Even if the body is super fast, super powerful, and super cool then can the lenses keep up? There will be many tests done by sites like DPR and by independent reviewers through the internet. Some tests will be goofy and some tests will be legitimately difficult.

I am keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

[bxf]

I love my K-1 and could work with the K-1 II as well; I'd just prefer the latter gave me the option to forgo the image processing.

I can't help but wonder how many of the images in your present photo collection would have looked better if the K1 II did not have the accelerator.

[DamienW]

That became awkward quickly.

[totsmuyco]

Wow! I log in after a long, long break and see 39 pages of posts here. The K-3 III is definitely generating some excitement. That's good!

I have no doubt the camera will be well built, be very ergo-friendly, and possess excellent image quality. This is a Pentax so all that is a given.

I would pay more attention to the focusing system. How accurate, reactive, and predictive will it be? Even if the body is super fast, super powerful, and super cool then can the lenses keep up? There will be many tests done by sites like DPR and by independent reviewers through the internet. Some tests will be goofy and some tests will be legitimately difficult.

I am keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

I'm also very much excited with the AFC. I'm also interested in the image quality. I don't need a new camera yet but, the delay in the release of the camera gives me quite an anxiety as I'm very eager to know it's performance. I guess I'm now a true Pentaxian as new Pentax technology gets to rub in on me.

[Larrymc]

Indeed. I also think so. Class A, your intentions may be noble, but do you really think you have any impact on the development of imaging technology that engineers at Ricoh choose to put into their cameras?
Keeping this topic vivid especially with the mythical narrative of "pure RAW" is just , sorry, naive. The only solution that would give you an opportunity to accept that would be an explicit exclusion of an integral part of a fine tuned and well tested system by those who have all the specifications and real raw data at hand and whose decisions are taken with best image quality in mind that can be provided by hard and software. I doubt this will happen, what will you do then? Criticise it, out of fear that others might criticise it? How about insisting on proof beyond a gut feeling? "Stareater on steroids" - how about calling out someone who is claiming that to prove it?

After having seen comparisons of the latest srnsors in FF(mirrorless) cameras with the good old K1(II) in 2020: it still wins on so many levels that any discussion on that detail seems pathetic.

Well said, I agree.

[mithrandir]

Those of us on a fixed income hope they don't price us out of the ability to purchase.

[nzondlo]

Those of us on a fixed income hope they don't price us out of the ability to purchase.

Hope for another stimulus, eh?

[Class A]

I didn't start discussing it on DPR.

I didn't start discussing it on DPReview's forum either. I responded to someone stating that they didn't think the K-3 III needed an "accelerator unit" (agreeing with them).

Again, what users discuss on DPReview's forum has no bearing on what DPReview will write about the camera, so I don't know why you are making reference to such discussions.

All they needed was Bill Claff's chart, to claim "Star Eater on steroids";

I can't believe I'm defending DPReview (they haven't earned my respect), but you know full well that the quote you are throwing around everywhere was made by their loopy "science editor" in an informal discussion; it was not part of their review.

What do you think will happen, when users are making claims about image degradation, when they keep saying, "look, they're doing the same but from ISO 100"?

Seems a hypothetical question because you did not respond to my request asking for references to any posts I made where I argue that there is "image degradation" (for the majority of users).

The camera's design is final. What are you trying to accomplish, by shedding doubt on its image quality without seeing even one image?

How do you know what is final about the design?
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to do firmware tweaks, for instance.

To be clear, I never shed "doubt on its image quality". Again, it would be helpful if you could reference respective posts.