That looks like a hit piece, an "article" that only points out all the worst case scenarios and negatives about the PS technology. Its nothing new, Pentax is used to get everything shot down, not matter the reality.
-Of course a telephoto of a far away landscape in a desert environment will not be super impressive in terms of sharpness. Hot air, atmospheric haze, loss of contrast due to distance.. That said, I doubt any other camera would do better. And of course, this is the image they view at 100%, the worst case
-Of course PS is useless if you scale down the photo to 670pixels. But pretty much any DSLR is overkill for that. Why would a D810 be better? You would get no more detail in the downscaled images, but you would spend much more money on the gear. And of course this is the image they will show scaled down, because the PS shows how powerful it is exactly in this scenario - still life, product photos.. Anyway, if all your photos will be resized to 670pixels, then just buy a K200D or ist* and save a bunch of money.
-Ok, so now they show the 100% crop of the previous image, which is truly impressive. And they immediately say how that is actually not good at all because it takes sooooo much time oh my god, it takes yeaars. Come on! Just putting the flowers on the table and setting up lights takes longer. And its frankly amazing that a camera at that price point can give such stunning detail. Not to mention that people have been doing some sort of stacking for years now, be it aperture stacking, NR stacking, focus stacking, HDR bracketing, panorama stitching, and combinations of all the things I just listed, like HDR panoramas.. and all of those things have very limited use and take a lot of time, but they are still used. In this case it is better than all-manual stacking, because the camera does it for you, and it does a good, precise job of it. Why wouldn't a photographer welcome a feature, that does a lot of the work for them?
Basically, that article is designed to crap all over the PS feature and once again claim that Nikon is so much better. "because it has more MP! Oh but in the next example MP are useless anyway" - article is juts one big contradiction. Its basically like a political ad. Safe to ignore.
Also, yes, not everyone will use PS. Not every kind of photo will allow PS. Of course. Just like HDR or any other special technique. You can't use flash in every photo, you can't use astrotracker in daylight photos, you can't use long exposure in bright light and expect crisp results.. photography is all about having tools, understanding them, and using them correctly. PS is just another tool, and it is a good one. It is one I would rather have than not have, even if I only use it a couple times a year. Somebody else might use it for every photo.
Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Let's be honest. They don't have the camera. They only have official images from Ricoh. Those are not the best in the World. Ricoh Imaging choose to publish images that even fanboys go say "mehhhh" and that doesn't help the K-1 make an impression.
True, Ricoh could do a better job advertising this. Though, the flowers photo is pretty good.
I wonder if the review site even has Ricoh's permission to use those photos..