[reh321]

Sure, these data may or may not reflect practical reality, but its still fun to sort the list by iso or EV and to see the pentax "entry level aps-c" K70 before ANY canon camera at all (including FFs), just one nikon (the DS) and the K1 II on 5th place beaten only by MFs. (Yeah yeah I know it's the accelerator chip shenanigans but still =) )

(Personally I'd like it better if those placements were for the DR instead, but I guess we can't cheat physics, especially with the same sensors as the others, but either way I'm super happy with the DR and ISO of my K1 I so don't take me wrong =) )

If you look at "Photographic Dynamic Range" curves, Pentax cameras clearly benefit from the 'accelerator'; you can't cheat physics, but perhaps you can work around it.

Attached Images

 

[FozzFoster]

What I'm curious about:
Are these figures telling us that, when using a camera with the accelerator chip, once we get past ISO ~200 that we should actually jump to ISO 800 to get more dynamic range? why doesn't the accelerator unit work on the lower ISOs?

[reh321]

What I'm curious about:
Are these figures telling us that, when using a camera with the accelerator chip, once we get past ISO ~200 that we should actually jump to ISO 800 to get more dynamic range? why doesn't the accelerator unit work on the lower ISOs?

There has been a lot of discussion about this with respect to the K-1ii - no one seemed interested when 'just' the K-70 and KP were involved. Even with respect to the K-1ii, most focus has been on Noise Reduction rather than on Dynamic Range, so I was surprised at the dramatic increase once the 'accelerator' does cut in. I believe the 'magic' ISO is 640, for the K-1ii at least. A certain number of users would like to have software control of turning the 'accelerator' on/off, and use the existence of this 'magic' ISO as justification for their claim that this should be an easy software switch; personally, I'd rather have the 'accelerator' on all the time - but none of us knows the implication of either extreme, nor why Pentax chose to do it this way.

[FozzFoster]

but none of us knows the implication of either extreme

maybe one day I'll own an accelerator chipped camera and can test it myself!
ONE CAN HAVE DREAMS, OKAY?!!!!

[reh321]

maybe one day I'll own an accelerator chipped camera and can test it myself!
ONE CAN HAVE DREAMS, OKAY?!!!!

I spent a year talking about KP - and being frustrated that no one else was interested - until this past Black Friday occurred.

Dreams do come true.

[Igor123]

If you look at "Photographic Dynamic Range" curves, Pentax cameras clearly benefit from the 'accelerator'; you can't cheat physics, but perhaps you can work around it.

Yes, it really does something good, the reason I called it "shenanigans" I guess is, as far as I followed the threads about its effect in the K1 mk2, I think consensus in the end was that it does affect details in certain situations in a almost non-visible, but detectable way when it comes to faint dimly-lit details. My take was that for 98% of users it will be a benefit, even if postprocessing (because of less work due to better starting point), and especially jpeg shooters (or non-pp-raw-people), but in a few cases/situations you do loose some detail compared to the K1 mk1, that no-one will notice maybe, but still...so shenanigans? =)

I mean maybe it does something we can't do in pp, but if a large share of it can be done in pp we should compare those other sensors and cameras after pp too...now it's just built into the raw, but then again it seems to be the trend that raws become more and more "precooked", so if that is something we must live with, why not have the best cook while at it =). But I guess personally I'd still like the on/off option even if I'd just turn it off for every 100 pics, it would feel better to know I can "be in charge" if need be.

---------- Post added 12-14-2018 at 12:19 AM ----------

There has been a lot of discussion about this with respect to the K-1ii - no one seemed interested when 'just' the K-70 and KP were involved. Even with respect to the K-1ii, most focus has been on Noise Reduction rather than on Dynamic Range, so I was surprised at the dramatic increase once the 'accelerator' does cut in. I believe the 'magic' ISO is 640, for the K-1ii at least. A certain number of users would like to have software control of turning the 'accelerator' on/off, and use the existence of this 'magic' ISO as justification for their claim that this should be an easy software switch; personally, I'd rather have the 'accelerator' on all the time - but none of us knows the implication of either extreme, nor why Pentax chose to do it this way.

I think the main reason the debate became more heated with the K1 mk1/2 regarding the accelerator was that then it was clearly stated that the sensor itself was the same, so the difference was only due to the accelerator and the effects could be studied more in detail without confusing the results with differences in the sensors themselves.

Then another reason might have been that the users of K1 mk1/2 are perhaps generally more more technically interested (at least some) in measurable performance, and perhaps more demanding due to expectations because of ff but also price.