[biz-engineer]

Did the studio test operator forget to disable the anti-alias filter emulation in Pentax K3 III menus?

[house]

There is definitely something wrong with the color profile in the downloadable DPR RAW files they have marked in the Info button as ACR embedded. There is no way to completely mitigate the problems. You can go to the ACR Preset Tab to force the image tone back to Natural which is how DPR exposed the image. This helps correct the color so the magenta blooming goes away but not completely. When you do this the settings all change under the Basic tab. When you first open the files in ACR the exposure reads 0.59 and all the other settings read zero. When you change the color profile under presets to force it back to the embedded Natural image tone this changes all the values for Highlights Shadows Lights etc which shouldn't be the case. This is only happening because DPR did something with the color profile settings in ACR.

If you open and output the same files without changing anything in DCU 592 the color looks normal so there is something DPR did with the files in ACR to make the color so far off. Correcting the color in the ACR Presets tab back to Natural helps the images look better but there still is a smudged appearance to all ISO's. It doesn't go away at higher shutter speeds so the whole shutter shack narrative is really just a red herring.

There are several things I noticed in the DCU shooting information window first it looks like DPR did some sort of manual white balance when the images where taken. That is what the file is saying. This can drastically affect the image depending on what they did including making the images look unfocused. This manual white balance is probably why the color profile can not be corrected completely. They also have High ISO noise reduction set to Auto and both Lateral Chromatic Aberration Correction and Diffraction Correction set to On. I don't know how these settings effect the RAW file. They also used sRGB color space.

All the DPR K3III files have the same problem. It doesn't go away in the higher ISO and faster shutter speed images. What ever is causing the files to appear soft isn't the shutter. The color profiles/white balance settings mismatch is causing most of the issues.

What is clear it is purposeful on DPR's end to push a narrative. It's either purposeful or they are just that unprofessional. To set manual white balance you have to know what you are doing.

Most of what you are saying is wrong Rico. I've checked some of the affected files in Rawtherapee and they are very soft indeed. It's not about white balance or some such which would never affect resolution anyway.

It could make the files look ugly but that's not what's at stake here.

[c.a.m]

The shutter speeds are slightly different for the JPEG and RAW image versions.

For example, the ISO 100 sample shows the following (Hover over the "i" icon):

JPEG: f/5.6, 1/30 s, file number when downloading: 0435

RAW: f/5.6, 1/40 s, file number 0436.

I don't think the slightly different shutter speed has a significant meaning for the displayed images or the discussion at hand, but I'm curious. It's also not clear to me the rationale for two different shots -- a single shot using 'RAW +' could have yielded a RAW file and a JPEG image at identical exposures.

- Craig

[c.a.m]

I've checked some of the affected files in Rawtherapee and they are very soft indeed.

I've also developed several of the files in RawTherapee.

For example, I can see that there are differences between files 0436 (ISO 100 | 1/40 s) and 0442 (ISO 400 | 1/160). However, had I not been cued by the discussion here and the report by DPReview, I might not have noticed the slight softness in the lower-speed images on first inspection. To me, it's most obvious at the hyperbolic resolution wedge (e.g., at the 26-28 range), but not so much in the other objects. I view the images on a calibrated Dell U2412M monitor at a resolution of 1900x1200.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 06-01-2021 at 03:32 PM.

[Qwntm]

I don't understand why the Mod thinks the test isn't valid. He is obsessed with comparing mechanical shutter to electronic shutter even when there is no visible blurring. At least nobody else in the thread agrees with him.

Almost like the mod has an "agenda" he's been told to follow. He's protesting a bit too much. The thread is half mod posts now.


I'm not anti DPReview, I thought the video review was OK and used it as a basis to sum up what I thought of the K3 III. But Chris and Jordan are not DPReview corporate.

There's something going on over there and it's getting stinkier as time goes by.

[Rush2112]

Did the studio test operator forget to disable the anti-alias filter emulation in Pentax K3 III menus?

If it is as simple as that I will laugh my way down three flights of stairs (at DPR's expense).

---------- Post added 06-01-2021 at 12:42 PM ----------

Almost like the mod has an "agenda" he's been told to follow. He's protesting a bit too much. The thread is half mod posts now.


I'm not anti DPReview, I thought the video review was OK and used it as a basis to sum up what I thought of the K3 III. But Chris and Jordan are not DPReview corporate.

There's something going on over there and it's getting stinkier as time goes by.

DPR deserves the fire on this one. I'm telling you. Enough is enough. They have been changing the DSLR narrative for quite a while now, at the same time pretending to be fair and balanced. All you have to do is pay close attention to their wording and such. Hilarious they are being so defensive, what, can't take it?

[c.a.m]

While we're on the topic of DPReview's article, I found their penultimate statement to be unsubstantiated:

"As we've come to expect from Pentax's latest full-frame camera, the K-1 Mark II, you may also notice some noise reduction from the K-3 Mark III in its Raw files at higher ISO values"

How is it possible to determine that there is active "noise reduction" in the RAW files, when looking only at the individual displayed image chips? Certainly, it's obvious that the noise level increases progressively with sensitivity levels, but it's not possible to conclude that there is 'noise reduction' at play without having intimate knowledge of the sensor's base characteristics. DPReview's statement is out of place in this very brief article.

Furthermore, the noise levels appear to be relatively tame up to a fairly high ISO, which DPReview neglects to highlight.


- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 06-01-2021 at 04:42 PM.

[Rico]

Most of what you are saying is wrong Rico. I've checked some of the affected files in Rawtherapee and they are very soft indeed. It's not about white balance or some such which would never affect resolution anyway.

It could make the files look ugly but that's not what's at stake here.

Sorry house I am completely correct. Just open any of the DPR DNG files in ACR then reset to camera raw defaults from image setting then output a JPG file. The clarity to the camera raw default file is exponentially better than the image settings JGP DPR has posted in the comparison tool. All this mismatch color processing DPR has done in ACR screws up the JPG images they are posting. The camera default image looks way better than the DPR "corrected" image.

The best spot to see this is the Fab Four patch. The camera raw default JPG you can see the threads on the jackets. The DPR ACR image settings JPG the color is off so bad the threads are smudged out of existence. It's simple to see using ACR just output a JPG with camera raw defaults and one with DPR's image settings. The image settings file is garbage. The image settings file is what DPR did to the image using ACR which makes it look worse than the default file generated by the camera.

Correcting the terrible DPR image settings still doesn't fully mitigate the "soft" not quit tack sharp look which is present at every ISO. It brings better overall clarity but not sharpness. It's hard to tell what is causing this it could be the focus point is just enough off at ƒ5.6 some parts of the image are in focus and some are not. Setting manual white balance in camera takes some expertise. If DPR fiddled with the in camera manual white balance settings can compound problems in post processing including sharpness. They certainly generated a garbage JPG file with their ACR image settings they have posted in the comparison tool.

[slartibartfast01]

Almost like the mod has an "agenda" he's been told to follow. He's protesting a bit too much. The thread is half mod posts now.


I'm not anti DPReview, I thought the video review was OK and used it as a basis to sum up what I thought of the K3 III. But Chris and Jordan are not DPReview corporate.

There's something going on over there and it's getting stinkier as time goes by.

This is his latest offering
"No...because their setup (camera review)* is designed to show any issues and it showed shutter shock could be an issue in some rare case.* So there setup is just fine from a gear related review standpoint."
So it sounds like he is saying they deliberately use a shaky tripod to try to promote shutter shock. Very odd.

[Qwntm]

This is his latest offering
"No...because their setup (camera review)* is designed to show any issues and it showed shutter shock could be an issue in some rare case.* So there setup is just fine from a gear related review standpoint."
So it sounds like he is saying they deliberately use a shaky tripod to try to promote shutter shock. Very odd.

"Worth mentioning at this stage, however, is the slight (relative) softness of the K-3 Mark III at the shutter speeds used for ISO 100 and 200 in our daylight mode in particular. Despite repeated attempts using Live View, the optical viewfinder, mirror lock-up, shake reduction (which isn't recommended for tripod shooting) and of course a self-timer, we were unable to produce a sharp image using the mechanical shutter at these particular settings due to shutter shock."

I found this an odd statement as well.

They "tried" all these things to get a sharp image... So what were they doing for the basic test? Just swinging the camera around at arms length on program and firing away when they saw the target go by? And all the things they "tried" seem like an amateur grasping at straws who doesn't really understand what they are doing.

"We really have no idea what we are doing, but it definitely is shutter shock."


Again, I'm not a DPReview "hater" as I don't really care if their headquarters becomes the new CHAZ in Seattle. But something is fishy and smells like it too over there.

[Kunzite]

This is his latest offering
"No...because their setup (camera review)* is designed to show any issues and it showed shutter shock could be an issue in some rare case.* So there setup is just fine from a gear related review standpoint."
So it sounds like he is saying they deliberately use a shaky tripod to try to promote shutter shock. Very odd.

It sounds like? He literally said: "Try using a very flimsy tripod on a floating floor. ".

Obviously, DPR didn't do that. DPR actually detected shutter shake on various cameras, e.g. the D780 looked quite bad (so it's not a Pentax only thing).
This is a question to put in another section, but - speaking of the D780 - a brief search didn't result in users complaints...

[ffking]

i haven't got time to catch up with the thread here, but fwiw I don't think it's a faulty camera - they talked previously about asking Ricoh for one to review - I think it's far more likely to be DPR getting some setting wrong due to not being sufficiently familiar with Pentax, and we shouldn't jump to assume bias or antagonism on their part - it just fuels a bad reputation regarding Pentaxians

[beholder3]

This is his latest offering
"No...because their setup (camera review)* is designed to show any issues and it showed shutter shock could be an issue in some rare case.* So there setup is just fine from a gear related review standpoint."
So it sounds like he is saying they deliberately use a shaky tripod to try to promote shutter shock. Very odd.

Fishy enough that he automatically implies to know exactly what the „designed“ setup looks like, while there neither is detailed documentation of the setup in text nor photo (god forbid).

Fishy smell 1: lack of transparency about the test setup used

Fishy smell 2: Someone who claims to know the exact details of the undocumented setup. And surprise: this secret knowledge is solely used to defend the underperforming site buddies.

Fishy smell 3: Even insinuating that the exact same guys who at random change their review methods and testing setups, who also do not mind at all that the infamous bicycle gig sometimes is done in great light conditions, sometimes in grey darkness while the targets wear very different contrasty clothes etc is just laughable.

[BigMackCam]

i haven't got time to catch up with the thread here, but fwiw I don't think it's a faulty camera - they talked previously about asking Ricoh for one to review - I think it's far more likely to be DPR getting some setting wrong due to not being sufficiently familiar with Pentax, and we shouldn't jump to assume bias or antagonism on their part - it just fuels a bad reputation regarding Pentaxians

I agree wholeheartedly.

DPR really shouldn't have published the test shots without knowing if they were generally representative of the camera (clearly, they're not)... but I don't believe there's any malevolence at play, and - with respect - we're not presenting ourselves as positively as we might with some of the assumptions and doubts aired here (though, given DPR's history with Pentax and potential reputational damage from flawed testing, I do understand). Perhaps there's a weakness in their testing conditions, or in operation of the camera... or perhaps it's a problem with their camera unit, or simply one that exhibits shutter shock or mirror slap with their specific copy of the DA*55 lens, set up on their specific tripod and head, at the shutter speeds concerned. We don't know.

Rather than assuming the worst in DPR, I think we're better off disproving there's a general problem by replicating their tests, showing our results and presenting our evidence (as some here, and on DPR, have done). I'm fairly confident they'd re-do the tests given sufficient evidence that their initial results aren't the norm. I'm sure they did that with an earlier Pentax model where the lens was at fault (was it the FA77?)...

[house]

Oh noes, here goes the wild and conspiratorial speculations again. If you come to these conclusions about camera testers I can't imagine what wild scenarios you make up for sports, politics or news. I see this kind of "logic" elsewhere and it's not pretty.

1. They're a bit lazy and have only one camera.
2. They don't have unlimited time to spend on shooting Pentax studio scene.
3. They use the same set up and tripod for all cameras and consider this part of the "even field" of testing
4. They have a standard lens per mount to enable cross body comparisons and don't want to change.
5. The lack of electronic shutter means they can't do the usual work around

It's unlikely that dpreview will get to the bottom of the shutter shock and find out how wide range of scenarios are affected or do any serious investigation. Unless there are no big releases in the coming weeks that is.

All dpreivew K-3 III sample galleries have a lot of soft shots. The recent DA2040 gallery being perhaps the exception. I think it's pretty clear that at least the camera at dpreview suffers from it.