An early but detailed look at autofocus with the K-1 II
By bdery in Hands-On Tests on Jul 13, 2018
Continuing our series of "first impressions" hands-on tests with the K-1 II camera, and prior to publishing our complete camera review, today we will take a look at the autofocus performance of the K-1 II.
From the beginning, a lot of emphasis has been put in the K-1 II’s increased ISO range and, even more, on the accelerator unit supposed to improve high ISO handling. However, the K-1 II also offers better AF tracking and general AF speeds, at least according to Ricoh representatives.
This article will look at the K-1 II's AF performance in detail. First, single AF will be studied. We will then evaluate AF-C in a variety of scenarios. In each case, we directly compare the K-1 II to its predecessor, the K-1.
By bdery in Hands-On Tests on Jun 18, 2018
Always interested in fleshing out their lineup of bags for active photographers, Mindshift Gear recently released their first sling bag, the Photocross.
While most of the company's products are large bags meant to be used on long outings, allowing the photographer to carry hiking and camping essentials as well as photography equipment, the Photocross is designed for a lighter load. This does not mean the bag is in any way less rugged. The bag uses weather-resistant materials and shows that the company gave a particular thought to the needs of winter photographers.
The bag is available in two sizes, called 10 and 13 (referring to the maximum screen size of the electronics they can carry, and not to the internal volume). We tested the larger version.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of each lens?
By bdery in Hands-On Tests on May 22, 2018
The three FA Limited lenses, often called the Three Princesses or Three Amigos, present many similarities but also a few significant differences. Now that we have completed our in-depth review of each on full frame, we can more easily compare them and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. In this short article, I will give my very personal evaluation of each lens.
In case you missed the recent reviews, here are some quick links:
The similarities between the three lenses relate mostly to those elements which contribute to their reputation. Build quality is superb in a small package. Colors, contrast and general rendering really set the lenses apart from many others. The so-called 3D rendering is consistent among the three models. Colors are rich and, more importantly perhaps, gradations are subtle and gradual, without any harsh transitions. In all cases, center sharpness is excellent at most apertures.
Chromatic aberration and vignetting are the weak points of the three FA Limiteds. Moreover, the 43mm and 77mm show softer corners at wider apertures. Because of this, these two lenses are maybe better suited for portraits or anything requiring subject isolation. On the other hand, the 31mm shows the most consistent sharpness figures.
Accurate Tracking with your 500mm
By K David in Hands-On Tests on May 4, 2018
B&H Photo Video loaned us a Celestron AVX tracking mount specifically to test with a 500mm f/4.5 Takumar telephoto lens. We wanted to get some close-up, tracked galaxy images for the Astrophotography Series, and this mount seemed like the best option for delivering those images. The mount test afforded us an opportunity to provide in-depth information about an uncommon, niche piece of photography equipment largely unknown outside of telescope photography circles. We elected to use a fast 500mm telephoto lens in lieu of a telescope because the process would be more recognizable to photographers not familiar with the specialized language used for describing telescopes. This article discusses the AVX mount with a telephoto lens and some of the incredible advantages it provides, some limitations, and some drawbacks.
A hands-on comparison in RAW and JPEG mode
By PF Staff in Hands-On Tests on Apr 28, 2018
In this article, we continue our hands-on comparison of the image quality of the Pentax K-1 with the new Pentax K-1 II, with a closer look at noise performance (earlier this week, we tested the new hand-held Dynamic Pixel Shift Resolution mode).
While both cameras share the same 36-megapixel sensor and PRIME IV engine, the K-1 II also incorporates Pentax's Image Accelerator Unit, which improves signal-to-noise ratio at the time of capture, and thus promises less noisy files in both JPEG and RAW mode. Let's take a look at some photos!
First test scene
Our first test scene was shot at ISO 6400, 2s, and F4.5 with the D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 lens. Both cameras were set to RAW+, with auto white balance, "bright" custom image with default settings, no in-camera noise reduction, and no lens corrections.
We then developed both cameras' RAW files with the same lighting settings, no luminance noise reduction, and only baseline (25%) color noise reduction in Adobe Camera Raw. 100% crops follow.
Here we observe that the K-1 II indeed produces files with less noise straight out of camera. The Image Accelerator clearly has an effect on RAW files. At the same time, though, fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail.
In JPEG mode the K-1 II is a clearer winner, with hardly any pixel-level noise despite the rather high ISO that we used (and no in-camera noise reduction). However, as we saw in the previous comparison, the K-1 does render fine details more clearly.
To verify these findings, we returned to the studio and shot the same test setup that we used for our earlier DPSR comparison. Note that we repeated all of the tests shown a second time in order to ensure that the experimental setup itself was sound.
Studio Test Scene
As in the outdoor test, both cameras were configured with the same settings: no noise reduction, no lens corrections, and RAW+. We used the D FA 50mm F2.8 macro at an aperture setting of F11, focused manually using live view with magnification.
Let's start with the raw files as before. The comparisons below span the ISO range common to the two cameras (i.e. 100 to 204800).
As a supplement to these unedited comparisons, we also ran the ISO 3200 raw files through the latest version of Photoshop CC in an effort to get the best possible result from each camera (within a reasonably short amount of time, of course).
The two cameras are very close even here, but subjectively we would say that the K-1 II has the advantage after all is said and done. The K-1 II also appears to produce more natural colors, and shows better clarity, but this may be due to a slight variation in white balance at the time of capture (and subsequently during development).