Originally posted by Rico What is there to be confused about BigMackCam? The fraud is that DPR is baking in ACR settings that remove detail from Pentax brand cameras while claiming Pentax cameras have baked in detail removing noise reduction. Get it? It's not what I am saying it is clearly what DPR's own DNG files are showing. The beauty of RAW files you can reset the file back to Camera Raw Default i.e. what the camera originally captured in the file. When you do that reset the file to Camera Raw Defaults with all the Pentax DNG files at DPR turning off the baked in Image Settings applied by DPR you find a whole lot of detail restored to the image. Like I said as far as I can tell it is only Pentax brand they apply special embedded ACR profiles that bakes in the removal of details.
The K-1 ISO 100 Pixel Shift images are a good example. The first is DPR's baked in ACR detail removal. The second image is the file set back to Camera RAW Default:
The K-1 Pixel Shift image of the DPR Comparison Scene is a good reference point to see what it really looks like as to how each manufacturer guesses to what it looks like. The scene of the people and the Fab Four patch demonstrate this well. The cross hatching detail in the scene of the people only really shows up using Pixel shift. The figure on the left edge with the white apron there is fine cross hatching present clearly visible in the K-1 Camera Raw Default image. Without Pixel Shift this fine detail does not show up. But you can see how DPR's baked in K-1 ACR Image Settings lift out all those details visible in the Camera RAW Default image. All I am doing is turning off the baked in settings DPR is applying in ACR which reveals all kinds of detail DPR removed.
DPR has been doing this to Pentax brand camera files for more than 5 years.
Rico your terminology is very unusual so it's difficult to understand what you are talking about. What does "baked" mean in terms of software settings?
They never state that they run the default camera parameters. I seem to remember they turn off certain corrections and set a standard sharpness (by the number in the acr interface). The default camera profile might have more agressive sharpening. If I'm correctly informed the default is actually different across brands.
Your scoop simply makes no sense to me and more over has nothing to do with the shutter shock detected in the K-3III at moderate shutter speeds.
The focus of this thread is flailing all over the place. People are bringing in all sorts of irrelevant and conspiratorial garbage to cover up the fact that everything points to dpreview doing nothing wrong and the model or camera having an issue with tripod mounted shutter shock under dpreview testing conditions. They even figured out the hack to shoot PS and extract one frame showing that they clearly went beyond what's necessary. I have lots of criticisms about dpreview and all ad or click based media but they've done and demonstrated very clearly what's going on.
Someone over at dprevew did tests and claimed no shutter shock but inspection showed it's clearly there, which was pointed out by a dpreview staff member. The test scene reveals very small issues and many Pentaxians are blind to obvious flaws. No wonder because it's splitting hairs and pictures will look good. When paying large sums of money however it makes sense to take advantage of the full capacity of the gear and it makes sense for dpreview to reveal all and every flaw how minute and irrelevant it may be.
---------- Post added 06-03-21 at 12:08 PM ----------
Originally posted by beholder3 Their job is to deliver a comparable JPG or DNG which shows the qualities of the sensor and image pipeline (that is what the studio toll is there for - NOT any shake reduction capabilities or vibration effects of unknown origins).
They deliberately chose not to deliver what was possible even for their limited skills.
Why do you think you know what job they have? Personally it don't think it makes sense to alter the testing setup to cater for flaws in individual cameras. If you can't get sharp images using the camera under the same circumstances as other cameras it should be pointed out. If the camera has features that can conceivably be part of a normal workflow I'd say it's fine to use these (electronic shutter) as long as it's clearly pointed out in the review that the camera fails under normal circumstances. Going outside what can form a normal photography workflow would imho be very bad for a review site.
Note I'm not saying this is an issue for lots of people or that all cameras are affected (though there is some evidence now to suggest several are) but stop going crazy about dpreview testing. It's all done well and it reveals the tiniest flaws. There's still scope theyve made mistakes but nothing suggest they have at the moment.
Last edited by house; 06-03-2021 at 12:11 PM.