Originally posted by Rondec There is way too much micro analysis going on here. Maybe Pentax was "asking for it," by basically releasing two versions of the same camera -- one with accelerator chip and one without. People have to know how this works.
At the same time, I just don't see this level of micro analysis with other cameras looking for the tiny signs of brands massaging raw files. Because it is clear that like it or not, "Everyone is doing it," to a lesser or greater extent. The question isn't whether the raw files are slightly cooked when we first start working with them, it is whether the cooking gives some kind of major negative effect in the end.
That is exactly what this sort focus ignores. The forest and the trees are all still there. There is less noise in the trees, but at most printing/viewing sizes the difference will not be perceptible and in fact the cleanness of the K-1 II images is likely to be perceived well by those viewing the images.
I agree about the micro-analysis, but the pixel peeping at DPR kinda invites that. It's not like they handed it to six landscape photographers for a month and said "review it." That would be of more value to me, at least.
And the K-1.2 isn't a new camera. It's a tweak on an existing model. I'd review it as just an update or postscript to the existing K-1, and maybe note say the AF improvement vs the NR issue, and the fact it didn't change much else, and leave it at that. But the reviews are about generating visits, not selling a camera.
I guess when so many cameras are so good we're gonna see even deeper dives by some sites into smaller and smaller and smaller bits of the image in search of differences to write about. Doesn't seem that useful to me. I'm not saying that kinda detail can't be important to some (say the astro folks) but as I've noted elsewhere, for me I'd much rather see how long a Pentax can survive a fall in a creek vs a Sony. YMMV.