|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-19-2020, 11:28 AM
|
| |
Not sure which graphs you are comparing but note that you cannot compare graphs produced with different cameras for a number of reasons. If graphs are produced by the same tester, using the same camera, using the same test parameters then the graphs are comparable, otherwise they are not.
N.B., not everything that normhead wrote is correct but I won't debate technical matters in a thread devoted to a lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-26-2018, 09:24 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-30-2018, 10:21 AM
|
| |
Yes, you may be right.
But that doesn't mean that one should take steps to reduce market share. ;)
I wondered whether the very enthusiastic KP review by DPReview encouraged Ricoh to believe that adding an accelerator to the K-1 would be perceived as a very welcome step forward by the tech-press as well as customers.
After all, DPReview was unusually gushing about how impressively Pentax had been able to squeeze out more quality of a sensor that everyone else couldn't use to the same level of noise-free excellence. Goes to show how inconsistent and unreliable their reviewing is, as they could have called out Pentax then and there.
Yes, I agree.
In my book, though, "very high quality" means being able to get access to the full capabilities of the sensor.
As it is, the K-1 II does not quite do that at high ISO levels, as it precludes the benefits of image stacking (e.g., in astro-photography) to be fully realised.
For some, this is correct.
For others, it isn't.
And again, there is the debate about what it means in real world terms, and there is the other debate what it does to the perception of the K-1 II.
So many incompetent reviewers and trolls. No need to feed them.
Nothing is wrong with that. But that's really not the question going forward, and you know it. :)
Same here. I'm rather keen on the new 50/1.4. It looks like they hit a home run with it. Who wants a Sigma Art lens if Pentax knocks something like the D FA* 50/1.4 out of the park?! :)
One? I can think of a large number of expressions that aren't family friendly! :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-30-2018, 09:13 AM
|
| |
Pardon?
First, there is the "News" column.
Second, there is the camera guide.
Third, there is the review database.
Fourth, there are annual comparisons of cameras within their respective class. DPReview use these to make recommendations (the K-1 gets a mention in the "Landscape" category).
Fifth, cameras appear in the camera comparison tool. You may spot a model that you didn't initially look for as part of the camera comparison tool which is used in every review.
In summary, there are a ton of chances that a reader may come across a Pentax product, even if they did not set out do look for one.
I find the notion of DPReview having zero impact on buyer decisions to be absurd.
As a matter of fact, I consulted DPReview when I was deciding between a K100D and a D40 on recommendation of a shop owner. This happens all the time all over the world.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-30-2018, 09:05 AM
|
| |
Agreed.
I hope that they know something that justifies their apparent indifference.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm still a huge Pentax fan. I'm just concerned that Pentax isn't doing as well as it could.
It is entirely possible that Ricoh does not regard this particular market as relevant for them.
Ricoh surely cannot think of the New Zealand market as being relevant for them, otherwise they wouldn't tolerate the abysmally bad New Zealand distributor that makes sure that Pentax has zero ("0", zilch, nada) chance in New Zealand.
Well, I'm not so sure.
If only a fraction of those could be persuaded to buy into a Pentax system, that could make quite a difference.
Ricoh may not be targeting DPReview readers but we all know the principles of economy of scale and how beneficial it would be for Ricoh and their customers if Pentax developed a broader user base.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-30-2018, 08:59 AM
|
| |
It is highly unlikely that the AF improvements have anything to do with the "accelerator" chip. The latter is most likely a DSP and only used for image processing.
It is likely that the "accelerator" is involved in processing the dynamic pixel shift processing but I'm rather certain that this is 100% independent from the RAW smoothing.
In other words, I'm rather sure that the RAW smoothing could be made optional without affecting anything else.
I didn't argue for the removal of the "accelerator" chip, just for making one of its functions optional.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-30-2018, 06:44 AM
|
| |
Dpreview receives 20,000,000 hits per months.
It is possible that no one cares about their findings about the K-1 II.
Is it likely?
I don't think so.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-30-2018, 06:39 AM
|
| |
I have no problem with you holding that view.
However, the damage has been done.
We can argue about the extent of the damage, but undeniably the "accelerator" issue has caused bad press for the K-1 II and it would have been 100% avoidable.
I disagree.
It is fine if someone finds their family pictures quicker to process now.
It is not fine to impose some RAW smoothing on everyone whether they benefit from it or not.
I'm not "upset".
I disagree with the notion of messing with RAW data, but I'm at least equally concerned with the damage the bad press may have done to the K-1 II sales and to Pentax in general.
Some may make that choice but- the K-1 won't be around forever; didn't we first "hear" about the K-1 II by virtue of the K-1 becoming "unavailable"?
- what if someone likes the K-1 but reads the K-1 II development as seeing no future going forward? They could be worried about not having an upgrade path that provides clean RAW data and/or wonder about the future of Pentax if it does so badly in a DPReview.
I don't think you can just brush away such concerns.
Yes, they will, but I'm convinced they could have made more money if they had given the people to opt out of the RAW smoothing, since that would have avoided the respective bad press.
They may not be able to sink it entirely, but I think it would be naive to believe that they don't have some influence on some readers. Pentax can use every single customer and could do with some enthusiastic reporting, instead of being "outed" as a RAW file manipulator.
Please tell me how would it be possible -- for this one "accelerator" issue -- for not everyone truly being happy, if the processing were optional?
The freedom to opt in or out must make everyone truly happy.
I agree with you that people will find ways to be unhappy about something in general, but the "accelerator" business could have been easily removed from the equation! No single soul would have ever had to be unhappy about it. I guess DPReview would have criticised the default setting, if it had been "on" -- they are just childish like that -- but in this case it is clearly DPReview embarrassing themselves as opposed to a camera exhibiting a trait that can reasonably be criticised.
Anyhow, this is off-topic in this thread, isn't it?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-30-2018, 03:51 AM
|
| |
I realise that.
However, DPReview made the RAW smoothing their main line of attack against the K-1 II.
If they had been deprived of that angle then it would have been much easier to argue that their low rating is due to debatable evaluation criteria. As is, I cannot argue with a review site that criticises RAW smoothing.
Of course, but that's not the issue.
The issue, AFAIC, is looking forward: What kind of cameras will Ricoh offer in the future? Will they all have mandatory RAW smoothing? It seems the K-1 only got spared due to the development timeline.
Again, I realise that and I agree.
I wouldn't have expected wonders from Ricoh at this stage and a mild upgrade was totally fine at this stage for Ricoh, in my book. It becomes problematic, however, if for some it is not "a mild upgrade" but actually a step backwards with respect to a pretty important area (RAW data integrity). It is even worse, if those "some" include one of the major sales influencers on the internet.
I don't want to worry about Pentax either.
Getting slammed from DPReview and effectively having the K-1 score being downgraded as in replaced by the updated K-1 II score (which ideally should have been better) makes me worry. Can Pentax really survive as a "Japan only"-brand that makes some casual sales elsewhere?
I'm exaggerating, of course, but I felt better about Ricoh and Pentax before the K-1 II release, as there was still a perception of an (admittedly slow but steady) upward trajectory. With the K-1 II finding many critics, this picture isn't as clear anymore. I'm particularly worried that Ricoh didn't just respond with a firmware update. This would have removed pretty much all the heat the K-1 II has been getting.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-29-2018, 08:39 AM
|
| |
The connection is Pentax (Ricoh). ;)
The impact on RAW exists and it simply shouldn't be there, or be optional.
Independently of what people like me think about RAW doctoring, DPReview marked the K-1 II down for this behaviour and I'm afraid that's going to have an impact on K-1 II sales. Completely unnecessary, if you ask me. Yes, I know, DPReview will always find something to moan about a DSLR, in particular a Pentax DSLR, but there is absolutely no need to give them free ammunition, in particular not, if not doing so would be of benefit to photographers (RAW shooters).
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-28-2018, 08:00 PM
|
| |
I'd get a copy of the D FA 50/1.4 if Ricoh released a firmware for the K-1 II that supports disabling the "accelerator" processing. I'd love to get a sign from Ricoh that they have an open ear to responses to their products (here the K-1 II).
Is that crazy?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-28-2018, 02:44 AM
|
| |
You didn't need to, though, as you had FF cameras and f/2.8 zooms gave you the same images. These f/1.8 zooms are only meant for and are only needed for APS-C.
...just thought I'd start a debate here; this should take care of the last ~3,800 posts needed handsomely. :D ;) :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-28-2018, 02:40 AM
|
| |
Let's hope the lens is also "large and intimidating" and "large and obtrusive" so that it fits the K-1 (II)!
P.S.: I like the new 50/1.4 quite a bit but am perhaps more keen on the new 85mm.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-26-2018, 08:18 PM
|
| |
| |
