Originally posted by biz-engineer It looks like Ricoh are trying to sell some more limited lenses by providing some sort of incentive (jpeg style), if this is the intention , this may work somehow in Japan but unlikely to be effective outside of Japan/Raw shooters.
There is another possibility: Ricoh marketing trying to stir some controversial / emotional buzz in social media, via awkward strange seasonal releases of firmware updates, to save time while they don't have any new product ready to be released, and so that to keep the Pentax brand alive. Looks like the firmware release is successfully controversial, but I'm not sure about the side effects (such as losing confidence, or having the perception that Pentax marketing isn't very serious, depending on interpretation from customer to customer).
Any other idea?
I think Ricoh basically is saying two things: (1) We're still here, even though we aren't releasing any K mount gear for the rest of the year and (2) We'd like to gently suggest that you buy a limited lens (or two).
I don't honestly think there is anyone who is on the fence about buying, say, a DFA 21 limited who will use this firmware as a reason to get one. The interesting thing to me is that it says there will be periodic firmware updates throughout the next year and Pentax can slip other updates into them if they so desire.
---------- Post added 06-30-22 at 05:46 AM ----------
Originally posted by newmikey You are all ignoring the elephant in the room: when presented with a DNG file, there is no obvious way to tell whether it is really a raw file or even whether it is actually produced by a specific camera respecting the DNG guidelines. It could be:
1) A straight out of camera raw file (from a camera manufacturer offering the DNG option to store raw in-camera)
2) A manipulated raw file stored by LR (or some other software)
3) The result of a conversion of a proprietary raw file to DNG via any of the many existing converters which may or may not result in the loss of proprietary Maker notes
4) Same as (3) but now in a lossy compression format which may even omit some sensor data besides Maker notes
5) A non-raw image file (post demosaicing, post WB or both) stored inside a DNG container
6) Any other variation I have not yet named above
This is not about fear but about certainty. The certainty that a PEF/NEF/CR2/ORF/ARW/etc file comes straight out of the camera which generated it, with only minimal adjustments allowed to its EXIF (such as copyright info or GPS coordinates)
My experience has been that there isn't a big difference. To me, the nice thing about DNG is that I can continue using my old version of Lightroom --version 6.14 -- with newer cameras like the K-3 III while shooting RAW. If I use PEF my version of Lightroom won't open the image.
When I first started shooting with Pentax digital, PEF was the better way to go because it was compressed versus an uncompressed DNG file (the DNGs were a lot bigger), but now they are the same size, contain the same information.
As for manufacturers massaging the RAW file, I think they are all doing it to a certain extent. The accelerator does this for sure. I don't think it is a big deal, but certainly the same things are done to PEF files as to the DNG files.