The difference in focus point is because the camera was set to refocus with AF with the remote control. I could reshoot without that setting.
I had to touch the camera to change the settings - ISO and PS/no PS - and slightly moved things when I did. I would need to use tethered shooting program in order to avoid that problem to meet your high standard, I think. I am just a hobbyist. Never thought I would buy a $2000 camera like the K-1 II.
Do you think my FA50 / 1.4 is not a proper lens ? I got it for $100 two weeks ago. It looks fine to me at f/1.8 . Not so sharp at f/1.4, which is why I stopped it down to f/1.8, but it depends on the subject.
I could have gotten more of the frame in focus by stopping it down further, but chose not to.
So, since you played, let me reveal what the files really are :
1. ISO 800, no PS
4. ISO 500, no PS
You got those two reversed. Do you like #1 more than #4 ?
And if so, did you think the accelerator was in picture #4 and hurting the quality ?
2 is indeed ISO 500 PS
3 is indeed ISO 800 PS
You got those right. I'm impressed you got 50% right. Do you prefer #2 over #3 ?
Overall, #2 seems to be the most popular, as ranked by the other players - LensBeginner and Mallee boy.
I haven't actually pixel-peed the shots myself. All 4 look very good to me. I knew what each one was, so there was no purpose in playing. Happy to play the game with your shots, though.I think I would be very happy with any of them unless I did huge enlargements, and even then, not sure.
I don't think I would have fared well in this game, but it was your game.
I can make the rendered JPGs and DNGs available if anyone wants them. Probably going to be about 500MB.
One thing I can say is that the profiles in RawTherapee significantly changed the color vs what was initially displayed in RT, and when rendered.
This color shift does not occur when I use Aftershot at default settings. But aftershot doesn't support PS, so I couldn't use it for the PS test.
In any case, your other claim was that PS at ISO 800 was making thing worse, vs no-PS at the same ISO 800 .
Do you still see that in these shots ?
One interesting thing is that the rendered PS files - regardless of ISO, and
regardless of original RAW or rendered only JPEG, (obviously RAW PS files are larger)- are significantly smaller than non-PS files.
That means some information got eliminated. Yet, people still seem to prefer the ISO 500 PS image #2, which is the second smallest of all 4 JPEGs.
So, the PS must be eliminating some unwanted information somehow.
Here are the sizes of original RAW files :
05/11/2018 17:38 42,859,883 ISO500.DNG
05/11/2018 17:38 157,822,689 ISO500PS.DNG
05/11/2018 17:35 42,784,080 ISO800.DNG
05/11/2018 17:37 158,751,797 ISO800PS.DNG
Obviously, PS RAW files are larger than non-PS.
And here, ISO 800 files are slightly smaller than ISO 500, regardless of PS.
For JPG files :
05/11/2018 18:35 5,779,612 ISO500.jpg
05/11/2018 18:33 4,265,957 ISO500PS.jpg
05/11/2018 18:31 5,221,428 ISO800.jpg
05/11/2018 18:32 3,780,444 ISO800PS.jpg
Here, there is a significant difference between ISO 500 and ISO 800 files. The ISO 800 files are much smaller, ie. compress better with JPG algorithm.
I tried rendered in lossless 16-bit PNG also, but got files that were larger than all 4 original RAW files