[interested_observer]

In terms of a comparison between the K1 and the K1mkII, I do wish that thew would provide a few comparisons at base and low ISOs. 100 through 1600 which would be of greatest interest for me.

• How much improvement in the retention in detail?
• How much improvement in noise reduction?
• How much improvement in the reproduction of colors and rich gradations?
• How much improvement in dynamic range?

Please knock my socks off.....

[biz-engineer]

long exposures at base ISO.

If you are referring to conditions for sky photography, it's not quite base ISO. For the milkyway on a dark summer night, camera settings would be something like ISO1600 with 2 to 3 minutes exposure. It would be interesting to test the K1 II in the same conditions, with and without astrotracer.

[Wheatfield]

In terms of a comparison between the K1 and the K1mkII, I do wish that thew would provide a few comparisons at base and low ISOs. 100 through 1600 which would be of greatest interest for me.

• How much improvement in the retention in detail?
• How much improvement in noise reduction?
• How much improvement in the reproduction of colors and rich gradations?
• How much improvement in dynamic range?

Please knock my socks off.....

I suspect that unless one is using pixel shift, there probably won’t be anything between the two at your criteria. The changes aren’t designed to address your criteria from the looks of it.
As soon as a K1 MkII is made available to me, I will be doing side by side comparisons to see if the upgrade is worth it to me, or if I should just wait to see what comes along later this year. I will mostly be focussing on pixel shift, since that is relatively important to me.

[monochrome]

If you are referring to conditions for sky photography, it's not quite base ISO. For the milkyway on a dark summer night, camera settings would be something like ISO1600 with 2 to 3 minutes exposure. It would be interesting to test the K1 II in the same conditions, with and without astrotracer.

Astrotracer is also an interest. We'll see whether the Accelerator eats stars the way Sony does.

I just want to see if I can increase shutter speed a stop without ISO noise degradation. My bet is neither version is universally a better choice for every application. I'm keeping my original K-1 and ordered a K-1II, so whichever works better for whatever use I have I'll use the better version. I'm stepping away from APSc to concentrate on using my FF manual lenses and the few, really good FF AF lenses I have on FF.

[DeadJohn]

Are you having problems with shutter shock handheld?...

I've found shutter shock on various cameras to be highly dependent on the lens and camera combo....

I've had shutter shock handheld and on a tripod. Usually, it's minor and only noticeable pixel peeping. The worst occurrences for me were: 1) Sigma 50-500 on a tripod during the August 2017 total solar eclipse. I was able to salvage good photos but my planned of 5-shot brackets only had 2 usable images per bracket. 2) Fall foliage, 28-105 handheld and on a tripod.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread. I'm curious whether there's a stealth shutter upgrade hidden among the mark 2 upgrade. If not, it seems like handheld pixel shift will be too limited, but it's not a big deal because the mark 2 is still at least as good as the mark 1.

[Dr_who]

I've had shutter shock handheld and on a tripod. Usually, it's minor and only noticeable pixel peeping. The worst occurrences for me were: 1) Sigma 50-500 on a tripod during the August 2017 total solar eclipse. I was able to salvage good photos but my planned of 5-shot brackets only had 2 usable images per bracket. 2) Fall foliage, 28-105 handheld and on a tripod.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread. I'm curious whether there's a stealth shutter upgrade hidden among the mark 2 upgrade. If not, it seems like handheld pixel shift will be too limited, but it's not a big deal because the mark 2 is still at least as good as the mark 1.

No upgrade to the shutter, if there was, the upgrade plan would also mention it, it however does not. Only the circuit board is changing.

[SSGGeezer]

The images at 12800 were very much improved. Thanks for posting your shot of the comparison. I see some reflections on the monitor that may cause you to think that the images are worse than they probably are, especially at the top and bottom of the ISO 25600 images. It is hard to get a shot of a tv monitor under those conditions but you certainly showed how much better the MK II is at ISO 12800.

[Wheatfield]

I've had shutter shock handheld and on a tripod. Usually, it's minor and only noticeable pixel peeping. The worst occurrences for me were: 1) Sigma 50-500 on a tripod during the August 2017 total solar eclipse. I was able to salvage good photos but my planned of 5-shot brackets only had 2 usable images per bracket. 2) Fall foliage, 28-105 handheld and on a tripod.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread. I'm curious whether there's a stealth shutter upgrade hidden among the mark 2 upgrade. If not, it seems like handheld pixel shift will be too limited, but it's not a big deal because the mark 2 is still at least as good as the mark 1.

One of the things that I have found makes shutter bounce worse is lens mounting the rig to a tripod. With the camera body well behind the balance point, shutter vibration gets magnified. I take a 1/4x20 eyebolt and screw it into the tripod socket of the body and run a bungee cord from that to a tripod leg to try to keep the body from ringing when I am lens mounting to a tripod. It helps.
What helps more is trying to stay away from the real problem shutter speeds from 1/15 to 1/60 second. This seems to be where most of the noticeable image degradation appears.

[interested_observer]

I suspect that unless one is using pixel shift, there probably won’t be anything between the two at your criteria. The changes aren’t designed to address your criteria from the looks of it.
As soon as a K1 MkII is made available to me, I will be doing side by side comparisons to see if the upgrade is worth it to me, or if I should just wait to see what comes along later this year. I will mostly be focussing on pixel shift, since that is relatively important to me.

Well, according to Pentax in their own words....

• "The accelerator chip is supposed to be most effective at low and mid ISOs. It retains detail and improves noise and DR."

... which came from a video that they posted - that has somewhat did a disappearing act - or I would post a link. They also had some additional verbiage, that I probably need to go looking for. However, some side by side comparisons that highlight these items is what I would like to see.

[awscreo]

mm. Honestly, not enough of an improvement in that shot to make me want to upgrade. Yet) Maybe I will just use that money to finish my collection and start saving for a proper upgrade in few years

[Wheatfield]

Well, according to Pentax in their own words....

• "The accelerator chip is supposed to be most effective at low and mid ISOs. It retains detail and improves noise and DR."

... which came from a video that they posted - that has somewhat did a disappearing act - or I would post a link. They also had some additional verbiage, that I probably need to go looking for. However, some side by side comparisons that highlight these items is what I would like to see.

I don’t have a lot of issues with noise, detail and DR at low to mid ISOs already. Just a guess, but I suspect there isn’t going to be a huge improvement here. I’m thinking everything is going to be small but noticable improvements. We’ll see soon enough as people start comparing images from the two cameras.

[reh321]

Astrotracer is also an interest. We'll see whether the Accelerator eats stars the way Sony does.

I just want to see if I can increase shutter speed a stop without ISO noise degradation. My bet is neither version is universally a better choice for every application. I'm keeping my original K-1 and ordered a K-1II, so whichever works better for whatever use I have I'll use the better version. I'm stepping away from APSc to concentrate on using my FF manual lenses and the few, really good FF AF lenses I have on FF.

I would think that preserving stars is essential. Wouldn't something that eats stars also eat other details? I had a scanner once for which the ICE ate signs.

[interested_observer]

I don’t have a lot of issues with noise, detail and DR at low to mid ISOs already. Just a guess, but I suspect there isn’t going to be a huge improvement here. I’m thinking everything is going to be small but noticable improvements. We’ll see soon enough as people start comparing images from the two cameras.

That is the reason why I'm asking. A real apples to apples comparison, as in a K1 to K1mkII with essentially the same sensor providing the image and the two various image processing pipelines providing the changes to the resultant images.

Adam was able to do somewhat of a comparison with the KP to the K1 and K3 on the KP review link.

• Pentax KP Review - High ISO Low Light Performance | PentaxForums.com Reviews

... so that is a start. Pentax has the optical ability to put some numbers to these comparisons, and the users can supply the eyeballs along with their opinions. Actually, the only opinions that actually matter are the ones that open up their checkbooks. The main question that every one needs to ask for themselves, is there sufficient change to make a difference in their photography to make the upgrade worthwhile.

[Not a Number]

... which came from a video that they posted - that has somewhat did a disappearing act - or I would post a link. They also had some additional verbiage, that I probably need to go looking for. However, some side by side comparisons that highlight these items is what I would like to see.

You mean this video? Easily found on YouTube and clearly linked from the Ricoh K-1ii product pages:
[K-1 Mark II] 35mm full-frame CMOS image sensor & PRIME IV & Accelerator - YouTube

And the K-1 Series Special Site also says:

Challengers | PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING
As expected, the accelerator unit incorporated into the PENTAX K-1 Mark II not only helped achieve the super-high top sensitivity of ISO 819200 by employing the combination of the PRIME IV imaging engine and the 35mm full-frame sensor, but also greatly improved image quality at normal sensitivity ranges.

There's also a professional's Impressions page by Yoshiaki Kobayashi

Impressions | PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING
With the PENTAX K-1 Mark II, PENTAX further upgraded the image quality to the level available only to top-grade full-frame models. While retaining high resolving power at lower sensitivities, this camera provides a broader usable range at higher sensitivities. Compared with the original PENTAX K-1, it has a two-step advantage at a high-sensitivity range, thus allowing me to capture high-sensitivity images more effortlessly. It’s good enough to enlarge an image captured at ISO 12800 to a large-size print. In fact, it played a vital role when I was photographing little birds in a dimly lit forest and glowworms at Waitomo Caves.

[interested_observer]

You mean this video? Easily found on YouTube and clearly linked from the Ricoh K-1ii product pages:
[K-1 Mark II] 35mm full-frame CMOS image sensor & PRIME IV & Accelerator - YouTube

No, it was this one that was linked in the post that vanished....

• SLR Lounge- Noise comparison shot K-1 vs K-1mkII @ISO 12800 - good improvement - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com