[thibs]

I know. But despite their flaws, they have a big database of camera sensor tests, a standardised testing procedure, and they make it easy to compare a wide range of cameras. So they remain useful.

Only if they publish results is timely manner. Otherwise the look like paid mercenaries trying to sell their own diet between shots (dxo one).

[normhead]

a standardised testing procedure

Ya, a single light bulb in their mom's basement.

[Simen1]

I have to agree with thibs on this. DXO looses usefulness much faster then linear with how many cameras their database is missing. Some of the most interesting cameras (645Z, K-S2 and some Fujifilms and more) have not been tested even if the 645Z have been out for a couple of years. The holes in the database reduces the value of the whole database. Now, after the launch of K-1 its going to be a monstrous hole in the database. The elephant in the room.

I'm just waiting for any other test site with similar test methods to pop up, and I will probably never look back to dxo.

[carolina_sky]

I'm not as excited as everybody else seems to be about the real world/practical application of pixel shifting.

For starters, only PS6 and CC support pixel shifting processing in RAW images, so I would have to go out and spend a lot of money to upgrade.
Or I could add another step to my work flow and process RAW files in Pentax's image processor and then pull it into Adobe. Ok, maybe.
But, I've watched/read a couple tutorials on how to handle motion blur in PS with stacking, and man that seems like a laborious process, for how much reward?

Since I intend to use the K1 for landscape images, especially long shutter waterfalls and seascapes; what am I really gaining with pixel shifting? 50% of my image could be flowing water. And I seriously doubt pixel shifting has a use for wildlife shooting. So maybe??? 10% of my portfolio could benefit from this?

I know I most definitely will NOT ever use a jpeg output from a camera, thus allowing the camera to do the pixel shifting for me is not an option.

So many people are talking like pixel shifting is a game changing, new world order, paradigm shifting feature. I'm honestly not convinced.

It all depends on what kind of shooting you do. I have used it on K3ii in landscape shooting, and even with its current limitations I probably use it in about 20-25% of shots. And it makes a very visible difference in DR and detail. Not so good for US east coast shooting but great for many western US landscapes (Grand Canyon, Arches, etc.). With ability to handle moving leaves and water, I expect it will be useful in >50% of my landscape shots with K1, and perhaps a lot higher, we'll see. I also do sports shooting and it is obviously completely useless for that. I do value this feature highly in my own work.

[RGlasel]

I'm not as excited as everybody else seems to be about the real world/practical application of pixel shifting.

There is the option of paying more money for a D810 to get a camera almost as good as the K-1 that doesn't have the unnecessary pixel shift. The point is, even without pixel shift, the K-1 is good value in a FF camera, this way, without paying extra, K-1 owners get to take pictures that simply aren't possible with its competitors.

[stevebrot]

Mandatory DFS was dropped from the K-5 onwards

...You could turn it off on the K10D too and every flagship model since. I don't have time to research it for all the consumer-level bodies.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The point is, even without pixel shift, the K-1 is good value in a FF camera, this way, without paying extra, K-1 owners get to take pictures that simply aren't possible with its competitors.

What he said...

The K-1 is a great option even without the PS feature.


Steve

[RonHendriks1966]

I'm not as excited as everybody else seems to be about the real world/practical application of pixel shifting.

For starters, only PS6 and CC support pixel shifting processing in RAW images, so I would have to go out and spend a lot of money to upgrade.
Or I could add another step to my work flow and process RAW files in Pentax's image processor and then pull it into Adobe. Ok, maybe.
But, I've watched/read a couple tutorials on how to handle motion blur in PS with stacking, and man that seems like a laborious process, for how much reward?

Since I intend to use the K1 for landscape images, especially long shutter waterfalls and seascapes; what am I really gaining with pixel shifting? 50% of my image could be flowing water. And I seriously doubt pixel shifting has a use for wildlife shooting. So maybe??? 10% of my portfolio could benefit from this?

I know I most definitely will NOT ever use a jpeg output from a camera, thus allowing the camera to do the pixel shifting for me is not an option.

So many people are talking like pixel shifting is a game changing, new world order, paradigm shifting feature. I'm honestly not convinced.

Since it isn't very popular to use with K-3ii owners, it probably won't be for K-1. It takes one seconde to make those 4 images for the pixel shift final RAW, so I don't see much handheld use.

Just try this if you like. Make 4 images and stack them and see if you didn't move in that time. For tripod fine, but the software is still expensive. I use lightroom and many do.

[jbinpg]

Since it isn't very popular to use with K-3ii owners,......

And just how do you know that, Ron?

[monochrome]

Always has some negative spin on everything. Please stop with the FUD. I don't believe you actually know anything.

When we actually see the new PixelShift then we can make these statements. Until then, what I hear is it works hand-held; it works when there is some motion in the frame; it rivals 645z and Canon's 50Mp output.

We don't really have answers yet on how the files are processed. We don't know whether the camera processes PS jpegs itself, I don't think. Pentax could / should have worked on the software, too.

[rawr]

An interesting 'open letter' to camera gear makers from Lenstip.com.

An open letter to producers of photography equipment

Expresses their frustration about turning up at CP+, only to find that much of the camera gear they came thousands of km to examine and report on were pre-production samples, or locked away behind glass, or did not allow images to be saved etc.

They suggest that camera manufacturers/ exhibitors should get sensible about putting real, working products on display, otherwise the camera media will find it hard to justify covering such events in future.

[clackers]

Make 4 images and stack them and see if you didn't move in that time.

Did you bother to listen to the Pentax guy being interviewed, or didn't it suit your negativity?


Where motion is detected in part of the picture, only the original pixels are used.


Sounds like a pretty good strategy. Can you suggest a better one?

[thibs]

Did you bother to listen to the Pentax guy being interviewed, or didn't it suit your negativity?


Where motion is detected in part of the picture, only the original pixels are used.


Sounds like a pretty good strategy. Can you suggest a better one?

Ron obviously doesn't a care a iota. Just thought he could say something bad so he did.
Thanks Ron. Always appreciated. NOT.

[Rorschach]

Since it isn't very popular to use with K-3ii owners, it probably won't be for K-1. It takes one seconde to make those 4 images for the pixel shift final RAW, so I don't see much handheld use.

Just try this if you like. Make 4 images and stack them and see if you didn't move in that time. For tripod fine, but the software is still expensive. I use lightroom and many do.

I heard there is an ignore function here. While I am extremely reluctant to put anyone on ignore, you are getting dangerously close to ending up in that bin. Very tiresome negativity.

[thibs]

I heard there is an ignore function here. While I am extremely reluctant to put anyone on ignore, you are getting dangerously close to ending up in that bin. Very tiresome negativity.

Once you start you will notice that:
* it's much better that way,
* you regularly add to the list.