[biz-engineer]

But that is something internet dwellers do, and TBH it's silly and unproductive even if it's become a "thing" for many of them. We could do with less stirring of the pot here on Pentaxforums.

Sure. However, marketing is not like engineering. In electronic engineering, software engineering, mechanical engineering, if your design doesn't work, it doesn't work, there is nothing emotional. In marketing, it doesn't matter if customers are logically right or wrong, customers are always right simply because they own the credit card. Typically, in 2011, a lot of people bought a DSLR, even if logically all they needed was a compact camera, but Pentax didn't say "Wait, please don't buy a Pentax K100D, you only need a Pentax Optio", Pentax marketing said "Dear customer, you desire a DSLR, we make it and sell it to you". Now, with firmware update , same principle applies, in order to get a good perceived images and customer satisfaction, Ricoh should probe customer opinion and deliver what sells and make money, regardless if it makes sense from a technical standpoint. For instance, if customers ask for 60 Megapixels, who cares if they truly need 60 Mpixels or not, important is to make the product that people want to buy.

[gatorguy]

Sure. However, marketing is not like engineering. In electronic engineering, software engineering, mechanical engineering, if your design doesn't work, it doesn't work, there is nothing emotional. In marketing, it doesn't matter if customers are logically right or wrong, customers are always right simply because they own the credit card. Typically, in 2011, a lot of people bought a DSLR, even if logically all they needed was a compact camera, but Pentax didn't say "Wait, please don't buy a Pentax K100D, you only need a Pentax Optio", Pentax marketing said "Dear customer, you desire a DSLR, we make it and sell it to you". Now, with firmware update , same principle applies, in order to get a good perceived images and customer satisfaction, Ricoh should probe customer opinion and deliver what sells and make money, regardless if it makes sense from a technical standpoint. For instance, if customers ask for 60 Megapixels, who cares if they truly need 60 Mpixels or not, important is to make the product that people want to buy.

That's a better post.

The logical assumption would be that Pentax is balancing "what customers want" (You want a 60MP sensor, I want a 20-26mp one for better speed) against "sufficient profit margin". They're not exactly a new company, and probably have a pretty good idea about both.

[Rondec]

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 ----------

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.

[Rondec]

Have you used it on a standard raw file? With dual demosaic (amaze or RCD/VNG4) and capture sharpening I find the results are cleaner and more detailed than any other software. Of course there are 10 further sharpening tools you might use but the aforementioned is enough for me. Lightroom just feels crude in comparison. I've only done quick comparisons though.

Some. I agree that RT is more powerful. I just find the interface to be a lot more crudely designed and not as enjoyable to use as a result.

(Sad to say, but we often use a product that isn't as good because it is 'easier' to use).

[gatorguy]

Some. I agree that RT is more powerful. I just find the interface to be a lot more crudely designed and not as enjoyable to use as a result.

(Sad to say, but we often use a product that isn't as good because it is 'easier' to use).

I agree. Raw Therapee is not a program I'm comfortable with, and certainly don't enjoy using. As a result, the only thing I'll use it for is Pixel-shifted images, and those are very few and far between. FAR between.

[Not a Number]

Ok, so how do we get from firmware to photo editing/processing software?

Seems like it's time to get back on topic or close this thread down.

[thibs]

It's OK, boriscletoed.

[reh321]

I agree with @Not a Number;

I use ‘gimp’ and ‘Raw Therapee’ {the latter on those few occasions when I start with a ‘raw’ (DNG) file on Linux},
but I see zero connection between that choice and
a firmware addition which adds another way of creating JPEG files in some cameras {not on my KP, and I would never use it if they did extend its reach}.

[gatorguy]

OK, now back on topic please. Second mention.

[MarkJerling]

As the PEF / DNG / RAW is an interesting topic, but tangent to the thread this discussion was posted in, I've moved it to it's own thread.
If I've missed any posts in this thread that belong there, then please let me know the post numbers and I'll do a further cleanup.
Here's the new thread: Discussion of PEF vs DNG and raw files moved from News and Rumours thread - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com