[BigMackCam]

rumours of the death of Pentax Marketing are somewhat exaggerated.

I agree, and I'd typically defend Ricoh / Pentax in marketing at whatever level it deems appropriate to achieve the required business goals (as opposed to what we think it should do)... But this is one situation that could certainly have been managed better. Having a representative available for in-store demos and questions isn't the same as professionally co-ordinated pre- and post-release marketing communications and reviewer resources via multiple delivery channels.

[normhead]

I was wondering that myself, but I'm on a mailing list with McBain Camera and on Friday they had a Pentax/Ricoh Demo Event. According to the email, "Danny Lee from Ricoh Imaging Canada will be on hand to answer all your PENTAX and RICOH questions. Drop by and check out the latest that Ricoh Imaging has to offer, including the Pentax K-1 Mark II, KP and K-70 DSLRs and the Ricoh Theta V 360°spherical camera." Unfortunately I couldn't drive to Edmonton that day, but rumours of the death of Pentax Marketing are somewhat exaggerated.

I'm pretty sure Danny Lee was our local sales rep at one point, but it could have been some other Danny. But I never met the guy. And, as far as I know I've never had an opportunity to meet the guy. What does he do with his time?

Years ago at the Pentax booth at Henry's EXPOsure, he might have been the guy who asked me it I'd like to see any lenses. "The FA 77 ltd" ."Oh, the sales rep who has it in his case couldn't make it today."

I'm willing to concede there is maybe a marketing department. And at least two sales reps, the guy I met and the guy who had the 77 ltd. But most of my time was spent with an older Japaneese gentleman who pushed a DA 560 on me "Feel how light it is." and a 645D. And actually said "Pentax lenses, made for the way people shoot pictures, not for the test charts." with a big smile on his face. I actually heard a real Japaneese Pentax corporate rep say that. I think that puts me in a pretty unique group. Pentax employees actually tried to sell me stuff. How many of you can say that?

That was probably 5 years ago and I haven't seen one since. I know y'al are thinking, "That normhead probably believes in unicorns too", but it's true.

Tess was with me, it wasn't a dream.

A woman at a booth selling backdrops, looked at us and said "Look, his and hers Pentaxes, how cute."

I repeat these stories once year to keep everyone from forgetting, there used to be actual people who worked for Pentax. There might still be, but they're real hard to get a hold of. No one gave me a card and said "call me whenever you want."

Yet I am constantly looking for opportunities to meet Pentax reps, just to prove they still exist. I heard about that McBain thing ( Once bought a used 200 F4 macro from mcBain for a ridiculously low price and then gave it away because I had no idea what ti was, so I know McBain's exists, That Danny Lee exists is another conversation.

I need pictures. Until then , it was ruse.

Here's what I want from Ricoh. A list f marketing reps. A calendar with events they will be visiting at least 6 a year eat least 2 in my part of the ory. A reservable spot where I can sit a table and play with Pentax stuff. Is that too much to ask?.. apparently it is.

I don't care if it's only one guy, and he spends just 6 weeks a year of his time going to events....I'd like to think there are Pentax employees that do more than take money and ship product to retailers and on-line stores. The company is being run like it's an online store that's secretly being run from someplace in the Philippines. Is there actually even one guy in all of Canada?

[clickclick]

I repeat these stories once year to keep everyone from forgetting, there used to be actual people who worked for Pentax. There might still be, but they're real hard to get a hold of. No one gave me a card and said "call me whenever you want."

I'm wondering if they're tied to the NASA folks pretending there's a place called "Australia"?

[Class A]

I just highlight that they answer a question nobody cares for and dont answer the question people do care for.

You have that impression because apparently you don't know how to read the curves.

Rest assured that a lot of people find these measurements to be very useful and that they do correspond to photographically relevant properties of a sensor.

I will stick with the term dynamic range as it is being used in forum discussions all the time.

Of course forum discussion reference "dynamic range" all the time. It is also true that an increased dynamic range can improve how much one can push shadows. However, the latter is not necessarily the case. If one increases dynamic range by increasing the full well capacity of sensels on a sensor then this won't necessarily have a beneficial effect on how far one can push shadows (given the same exposure).

The property you are interested in is "SNR" (signal to noise ratio) at low signal levels.

Which actual practice relevant quality does the "dynamic range" depicted in the DxO curves give the average photographer when it fails to predict the ability to push shadows (which is a question people ask)?

First, DR curves are not meant to show the property you are looking for.

You need to look at the "Full NR" curves which show the SNR for the full range of light levels and then want to focus on low light levels (as you are interested in shadows, or at least pushing low light levels).

You'll find, for instance, that when the K-1 (click on "Full SNR") reaches 6dB at ISO 100, the D810 (click on "Full SNR") has not reached 6dB at the same light level yet (you can use your mouse cursor as a reference point when flicking between two browser windows). This means that at ISO 100, the K-1 supports a bit more shadow pushing. However, at ISO 64 (a setting not available to the K-1), the D810 has a better SNR at the same light level.

Second, you shouldn't take DPReview's DR shots at face value. We know that they initially made a "processing" mistake with their ISO 12,800 shot for the camera comparison tool. While they have updated the "camera comparison shots", they haven't updated the "DR" shots for the K-1 II. The latter are still the result of using a "1.00" firmware and unknown (and potentially incorrect) post-processing. Perhaps they unintentionally used noise reduction for the K-1 II? Something along these lines must have happened for their initial ISO 12,800 image on which they partly based their original verdict.

Using DPReview studio scene shots as your ultimate source of truth is not a good idea. They are simply not done with a level of rigour that justifies such a level of trust. Just note the magenta tinge in the K-1 II DR shots. None of the other cameras (including the K-1) have such a tinge problem and I maintain that a proper processing of the K-1 II files should not produce a magenta tinge.

---

Last edited by Class A; 06-04-2018 at 07:34 PM.

[ffking]

It would be quite amusing if everybody here went over to DPR posting positive things about Pentax - dpthoughts computer might overheat and go up in flames as he tried to refute every point with his streams of hostile nonsense.

[Mikesul]

Why can't we just let this die? Does more harm to us than to dpr.

[Kunzite]

Unfortunately there is no good solution for that. Dpthoughts is protected by DPR (by some mods there or whatever) - he's filling the comment sections with hundreds of messages which are nothing else than bashing.
It's as if that's DPR's official stance.

[texandrews]

I'm pretty sure Danny Lee was our local sales rep at one point, but it could have been some other Danny. But I never met the guy. And, as far as I know I've never had an opportunity to meet the guy. What does he do with his time?

Years ago at the Pentax booth at Henry's EXPOsure, he might have been the guy who asked me it I'd like to see any lenses. "The FA 77 ltd" ."Oh, the sales rep who has it in his case couldn't make it today."

I'm willing to concede there is maybe a marketing department. And at least two sales reps, the guy I met and the guy who had the 77 ltd. But most of my time was spent with an older Japaneese gentleman who pushed a DA 560 on me "Feel how light it is." and a 645D. And actually said "Pentax lenses, made for the way people shoot pictures, not for the test charts." with a big smile on his face. I actually heard a real Japaneese Pentax corporate rep say that. I think that puts me in a pretty unique group. Pentax employees actually tried to sell me stuff. How many of you can say that?

That was probably 5 years ago and I haven't seen one since. I know y'al are thinking, "That normhead probably believes in unicorns too", but it's true.

Tess was with me, it wasn't a dream.

A woman at a booth selling backdrops, looked at us and said "Look, his and hers Pentaxes, how cute."

I repeat these stories once year to keep everyone from forgetting, there used to be actual people who worked for Pentax. There might still be, but they're real hard to get a hold of. No one gave me a card and said "call me whenever you want."

Yet I am constantly looking for opportunities to meet Pentax reps, just to prove they still exist. I heard about that McBain thing ( Once bought a used 200 F4 macro from mcBain for a ridiculously low price and then gave it away because I had no idea what ti was, so I know McBain's exists, That Danny Lee exists is another conversation.

I need pictures. Until then , it was ruse.

Here's what I want from Ricoh. A list f marketing reps. A calendar with events they will be visiting at least 6 a year eat least 2 in my part of the ory. A reservable spot where I can sit a table and play with Pentax stuff. Is that too much to ask?.. apparently it is.

I don't care if it's only one guy, and he spends just 6 weeks a year of his time going to events....I'd like to think there are Pentax employees that do more than take money and ship product to retailers and on-line stores. The company is being run like it's an online store that's secretly being run from someplace in the Philippines. Is there actually even one guy in all of Canada?

Best post on this topic ever. Agree 100%, and this is true for the U.S. even more so.

[beholder3]

You ...

Still all the available curves are completely worthless. No image proof, no value.

Try answering the following question from above:

Which actual practice relevant quality does what you call "dynamic range" depicted in the DxO curves give the average photographer when it fails to predict the ability to push shadows (which is a question people ask)?
And can you show me two raw files which prove the curves' claim (a better versus a worse value on the curves) visually in a real image?

If you can show practise relevant added value with photo evidence in raws everyone can check independendly, I'll withdraw the "worthless". A curve alone means nothing.

The crappy execution on dpr's is a shame, yes, but with regards to this question all anyone needs is a raw file with a comparable subject at comparable lighting situations. And they are there.

[mecrox]

It would be quite amusing if everybody here went over to DPR posting positive things about Pentax - dpthoughts computer might overheat and go up in flames as he tried to refute every point with his streams of hostile nonsense.

Like most madmen, however, he has seized on a point which is perfectly sane and up for reasonable discussion - until he got his hands on it. That is the pros and cons of baked-in alterations to RAW files. This isn’t just about noise (personally, I often introduce it as grain into my BW images so it’s no big thing for me). It is also about colour reproduction and, possibly, tweaks to clarity/acuity too. No doubt there is a proper technical term for that. On some platforms it embraces lens corrections, too. Plenty of arguments and plenty of interesting technology here.

I suspect we will be hearing a lot more about this in future as more and more software is brought to bear on the otherwise simple act of taking a photograph. There’s much more to this topic than just de noise.

[HoustonBob]

Way to many people identify with their stuff on a tribal level.

---------- Post added 06-02-18 at 09:18 AM ----------



I've noted the difference in the files as well. The K-1 noise is harsher, the K-1 mkII image is a little darker. The noise in the K-1 image is unacceptable for my liking. The K-1 mkII images just barely makes past the threshold although I might clean it up a bit further.

Thanks for the images Big Guy. This kind of work is thankless and tedious.

I'm starting to think this whole discussion was triggered by different noise reduction values. Tess and I simply will not print or show images with visible noise. Obviously others have different standards. We are more in line with the flowing strokes and solid colours fo painters, than the grainy hi-res, artifact loaded images of technical photogprhers. Simply stated, the K-1 MkII is photography headed our way.

To us solid colours and flowing lines are more important than detail on a level of difference of 1/100 inch or less.

Those who dislike the K-1 mkII seem to have no problem with artifact loaded images, the absence of artifacts is not an issue for them. Hence their tolerance of noise in their images. Two opposite poles that will never meet. For us the K-1mkII would be worth something. Just not $600.

I look at the files presented so far and think the K-1 mkII is a little better for what we do. But the K-1 is so good already, it's unlikely we'll be upgrading. For some the difference seems to be a big deal. For us, it's negligible difference barely worth taking the time to even think about.

Having looked at all available comparisons, my only comment would be "what's all the fuss about?" Compared to the old days comparing a D800 to my K-5, there were elements in the D800 image that weren't even in the K-5 images. That was a difference. This K-1 vs. K-1 mkII thing, very little practical difference with no clear evaluations that couldn't be accounted for with . lens, exposure, correctable contrast values and focus (and therefore DoF) differences. Much ado about nothing.

So, since noise in digital is analogous to film grain, what you are saying is that in the film era you only shot with ASA 32 Panatomic-X on a 16x20 view camera. No grainy Tri-X on a 35mm for you. Right?

[normhead]

So, since noise in digital is analogous to film grain, what you are saying is that in the film era you only shot with ASA 32 Panatomic-X on a 16x20 view camera. No grainy Tri-X on a 35mm for you. Right?

Whenever I could. And noise in digital is not like film grain, at all. Film grain was a function of using a silver emulsion to capture photons. Digital noise is the predictable (at a quantum level) variation in photon distribution, which our brain filters out (because it's extraneous to the tasks at hand.) Although noise can also be analogue enhancement artifacts, with film, noise was a product of the tech. In digital, at least some of the noise is a product of the environement. I used to love the little curly Qs of enlarged grain. Digital noise? Not so much.

[ffking]

Why can't we just let this die? Does more harm to us than to dpr.

This guy isn't just an ordinary troll, he's on a crusading mission - he refuses to let anything positive about Pentax go unchallenged - but Pentaxian refutations haven't descended to his level, and I don't think we do harm to the brand by politely countering his more ridiculous claims.

[swanlefitte]

I have no clue about this troll because i haven't bothered since the first days after the review was first put up. I wonder how the troll would reply if someone said they like the pentax logo. Probably bash that too.

[ffking]

I wonder how the troll would reply if someone said they like the pentax logo. Probably bash that too.

undoubtedly