[house]

People largely ignored the K-70 and KP .... except to praise the resulting images.

Only when did the K-1ii came out did really people look how those cameras worked.
When they did realize that even ‘raw’ images are affected, there were many many more complaints than there were here about the “flippy” LCD.
DPR complained and complained.
People asked Ricoh and Pentax representatives about it.
Their response was to use it more.
We do not know how Pentax makes decisions, but I guess that they do not depend on advice from New Zealand or the USA.
Apparently Japanese consumers don’t see any reason to sit for hours at a computer doing what the camera could do at least as well.
Apparently Japanese consumers have fun using the output of the ‘accelerator’ - I know that this American does.

It should not come as a surprise that users and reviewers of high end models are more picky and more likely to complain about very technical aspects of image processing.

[gatorguy]

As I recall, when the KP was announced there was at least one statement from someone affiliated with Ricoh that the KP was the "successor" to the K-3 II.

When the KP was initially announced Pentax described it as a "mid-class camera" (late January of 2017 if you want to search it up), leaving the door wide-open for this new APS-C flagship, the K3III. Had the KP been a true successor to the K3II Pentax would never have referred to it as mid-class.

[natarake]

I read in an article before that K models with a second letter designation are technology/concept demonstrators, like KS.* Could it be that KP was a concept model?

[MMVIII]

It should not come as a surprise that users and reviewers of high end models are more picky and more likely to complain about very technical aspects of image processing.

It is also no surprise that complaining starts even before the images of the processing are available to have a look at them. Right 😊

[house]

It is also no surprise that complaining starts even before the images of the processing are available to have a look at them. Right 😊

As usual with accellerator discussions there are so many misrepresentations / misunderstandings of the issue that those critical have to post 29 responses to just get the baseline of the critique across. The end result makes it appear that the accellerator is a bigger issue that even the most ardent critics think it is. So brand loyalty ends up making the brand look bad. There are of course also users who just dont comprehend the issue.

[Serkevan]

When the KP was initially announced Pentax described it as a "mid-class camera" (late January of 2017 if you want to search it up), leaving the door wide-open for this new APS-C flagship, the K3III. Had the KP been a true successor to the K3II Pentax would never have referred to it as mid-class.

I mean, there was a logical follow up to the K-7/5/3 series...

[MMVIII]

As usual with accellerator discussions there are so many misrepresentations / misunderstandings of the issue that those critical have to post 29 responses to just get the baseline of the critique across. The end result makes it appear that the accellerator is a bigger issue that even the most ardent critics think it is. So brand loyalty ends up making the brand look bad. There are of course also users who just dont comprehend the issue.

Sure. That's how you can also see it. While I won't follow this on the discussion on the k-1 II (it would be so easy to proof by showing a stacked astrophoto taken at base ISO and a stacked taken at 640. bring some practice yo the theory) I find this patronising exhausting approach utterly amusing for a camera that is not even available. But, who am I to judge... fair enough

[house]

I find this patronising exhausting approach utterly amusing for a camera that is not even available. But, who am I to judge... fair enough

As far as I can tell there is no connection to the K-3III beyond the mere general concept of noise reduction baked in raw. I can't remember anyone making any critical statements about the K-3III beyond that. I could have missed it of course but it seems this has only been inferred or made up?

[reh321]

As far as I can tell there is no connection to the K-3III beyond the mere general concept of noise reduction baked in raw. I can't remember anyone making any critical statements about the K-3III beyond that. I could have missed it of course but it seems this has only been inferred or made up?

"Baked in" means "not reversible".
Pentax apparently believes that adding noise back in, and reducing DR / color fidelity is not fun.

[MossyRocks]

Sure. That's how you can also see it. While I won't follow this on the discussion on the k-1 II (it would be so easy to proof by showing a stacked astrophoto taken at base ISO and a stacked taken at 640. bring some practice yo the theory) I find this patronising exhausting approach utterly amusing for a camera that is not even available. But, who am I to judge... fair enough

If someone would give me a K-1ii I would be happy to carry out such a test, and for completeness I would need a K-1 as well.

[Class A]

(it would be so easy to proof by showing a stacked astrophoto taken at base ISO and a stacked taken at 640. bring some practice yo the theory)

1. It is is easy to do if one has access to a K-1 II. I would have done the empirical backing up of my technical arguments a long time ago if I had a K-1 II.
2. When the K-1 II was introduced, quite some image comparisons were done between the K-1 and the K-1 II. The consensus appeared to be that post-processing can make the images look like they came from the other model.
3. In their K-1 vs K-1 II comparison pentaxforums.com wrote:

   "...fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail."

   They also wrote

   "Very high ISO values show the effect of the accelerator unit: images show lower noise, but appear to have a lower clarity (or local contrast in the mid-tones)."

   Was that also part of (to use the words of someone else) the "whiny drone" about the "accelerator unit"?
4. Often there is nothing more practical than a good theory. One does not need to jump from a 10-storey house in order to figure out that the outcome won't be pleasant. Since it is known what denoising does to high-frequency spatial information, it is safe to make predictions/statements about the outcomes of its application even without practically doing it.

It is also no surprise that complaining starts even before the images of the processing are available to have a look at them.

Just in the event this is targeted at me, please note that I initially wrote

"This is not to throw shade on the K-3 III, the latter will be an awesome camera, I'm just trying to not let expectation run wild. "

and later, with reference to discussions about the "accelerator unit" of the K-1 II:

"I'm not making any statements about the K-3 II because I'm lacking comparative images."

[MarkJerling]

It is is easy to do if one has access to a K-1 II. I would have done the empirical backing up of my technical arguments a long time ago if I had a K-1 II.

Bring your K-1 to the Wairarapa and we can do a test. I the mean time, lets get back to the original topic.

[microlight]

I’d come to Wairarapa in a shot - but sadly I don’t have either flavour of K-1... but the K-3III does sound very inviting. (Also Jacinda wouldn’t let me in!)

[reh321]

Bring your K-1 to the Wairarapa and we can do a test. I the mean time, lets get back to the original topic.

I'm glad to hear that you and your K-1ii survived the earthquake - you are the first one I thought of when I heard the news {I don't know many people in NZ}.
Now, back to our topics.

[MarkJerling]

I'm glad to hear that you and your K-1ii survived the earthquake - you are the first one I thought of when I heard the news {I don't know many people in NZ}.
Now, back to our topics.

Thanks. Things moved a bit but it was pretty far from us, so all good!