Originally posted by Kunzite 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.
Originally posted by Kunzite 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.
Originally posted by Kunzite 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).
Originally posted by Kunzite 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.