[BigMackCam]

Right, and that matches what I've said in the article. It's only when you want to remove noise quite strongly, e.g. using PRIME, that you see clear differences.

As for the chosen NR being strong, I believe that would be the goal for anybody actually using PRIME. It's not something you unleash if you want to just reduce noise a little bit.

Ah, I see. I must come clean and say I've never used PRIME. I've heard about it many times, often held up as the "Holy Grail" of noise reduction, but it seems like it has quite specific applications and isn't necessarily the best choice in all situations... Is that a fair statement?

Interesting indeed. I often wonder how frequently people use anything other than AMaZE.

I used to use VNG4 quite regularly. Even now, depending on the photos I'm editing, I'll sometimes switch between AMaZE and VNG4 to see the difference. VNG4 has the appearance of being not quite so detailed and sharp - and that may indeed be fact, I don't know - but I can't help think that part of the reason is lack of maze artefacts which, in AMaZE, can give a false perception of detail and sharpness (in the same way that a certain amount of luminance noise can). Whatever, occasionally I'll find I can get more pleasing results with VNG4 and slightly more sharpening.

Thanks for your comment, independent research, and editing suggestions. It was fun reading, and I appreciate it.

Likewise - thanks for your article too. Post-processing is an area of great interest to me, so it's always nice to read articles I can learn from

[reh321]

I'm happy man. I've made not above 150 shots at ISO1600 and higher from 2005 year.

I've made nearly that many in the past month.
Higher ISO allows me to select shutter speed 1/500 or higher to stop motion and aperture around f/8 to get deep DOF even when the sun isn't shining.

[BigMackCam]

I've made nearly that many in the past month.
Higher ISO allows me to select shutter speed 1/500 or higher to stop motion and aperture around f/8 to get deep DOF even when the sun isn't shining.

I've had a relatively quiet couple of months with my photography, but over the past year I've shot hundreds of photos between ISO 1600 and ISO 25,600 on my K-3 (and a good number on my Hasselblad HV too). Many are keepers (a greater proportion than those that aren't), and look good displayed on my old 17" laptop display at screen-filling size. Of course, they needed work in post-processing, and the resulting images demand allowances be made for some remaining noise and lack of very fine detail. But when my folks and friends see those photos, they don't seem to notice any of that

One of the photos, taken at ISO 6400 if I remember correctly, was used for both a large Christmas card and big coffee mug for my Mum. The photo looks great on both items, was a source of much joy for my Mum, and ranks among my favourite photos of my cat

[Rondec]

These discussions revolve around a tiny bit of detail difference seen between two images only seen at one hundred percent viewing! I do think there is some detail loss between the K-1 and K-1 II however, I question a couple of things. Would you notice it at a normal print size for these images? Secondly, would you notice it if there were not a comparison image to try to ferret out if there is some detail loss?

I am convinced that the answer to both of these questions is no. I do shoot iso 6400 and 12K periodically -- but not for fine art shots, just shots of my kids doing kid things in low lighting situations. I do have to apply more noise reduction to K-1 images than to K-1 II images when shooting at this high iso, but it isn't the end of the world, but it does take more time to process those images.

I really do hate pixel peeping and when you view these images at a normal size, you can't tell the difference with regard to detail, only that the K-1 II has less color noise. And yes, there are plenty of tools to get there with a K-1 image too, it just takes time.

[Kunzite]

I hope I'm allowed to answer this. It's here, or in plain text:

Pentax K-1 vs. K-1 II: NR with DxO PRIME – breakfastographer

Since you cannot see that difference on the DPReview's "originals", that points toward a processing issue.

[kooks]

What specific thing(s) about the A7iii makes it easier to use in the setting of a wedding??

Talking specific about weddings it have some advantages, i shoot weddings for living, not just like once in a while wedding thing.. i mean like every single weekend of the year... and IMO A7iii does have some key features that for wedding shooters are top important: 1- AF-C is much much advance, it really works and its really fast, you can keep track of people moving very easy coming to you, getting away from you, right, left.. it really works fast and easy.. 2- Eye-AF is an amazing feature for any kind of portrait shooter.. 3- Buffer size is really good, in order to lock the camera you have to be a really spray shooter.. if not, the camera can hold very well the buffer.. 4- available modern lenses and their size.. if we take apart the GM series Sony have some really nice small size lenses such as the 28mm f2, 55mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 that are all modern and silent.. and if we add to that the new Tamron 28-75 f2.8 that is a really compact zoom 2.8 you can get a nice small size system... 5- custom bottons are really hepful.. for example i have C3 set to when if I hold it it changes my setting to 1/160 f2.0 and auto ISO with a top of 6400 that is very helpful for unpredictable situations like if somebody walk in the room and you want to get a fast if of that person reaction while you are taking another shot with a totally different exposure, for weddings that is really really helpful.. 6- silent shooting is also a plus when needed.

Now.. this doesnt mean that A7III is better camera than K1.. it just means that for that kind of work ( weddings/events ) it is a tool that fits better.. I have been shooting weddings with K1 since it came out, actually i think that mine was the first K1 that was in Costa Rica by that time.. and it was good, it was lovely to shoot with the K1 and the job was done, but I can not deny I had some limitations that with the A7iii I don't have.. but K1 also have some advantages, the 36MP sensor is really nice to crop and to get detail and the ergonomics of Pentax are way better than Sony, the way that you can tilt the screen with the K1 is really good, strange but good, also the custom dial is a really nice feature.

[Rico]

The entire DPReview "worst" camera title is hinged on that which shall be not be spoken the Accelerator Unit. In the video they recommend not to upgrade a K-1 to a K-1MKII which can only mean one thing.

What I found odd is how DPReview never explained how in their previous review of the KP they praised the high ISO handling of the Accelerator Unit as APS-C class leading which contradicts their conclusion the pre-processor in K-1MKII delivers inferior high ISO quality.

The DPR K-1MKII review labeled the one thing the K-1MKII has going image quality into a negative.

I don't mind criticism but at least criticize something that actually exists.

DPReview has a recent interview with Phil Askey the site founder. One thing Askey stressed from the beginning he wanted the testing to be as accurate and repeatable as possible.

[BigMackCam]

Talking specific about weddings it have some advantages, i shoot weddings for living, not just like once in a while wedding thing.. i mean like every single weekend of the year... and IMO A7iii does have some key features that for wedding shooters are top important

...

Now.. this doesnt mean that A7III is better camera than K1.. it just means that for that kind of work ( weddings/events ) it is a tool that fits better for that kind of job.. I have been shooting weddings with K1 since it came out, actually i think that mine was the first K1 that was in Costa Rica by that time.. and it was good, it was lovely to shoot with the K1 and the job was done, but I can not deny that were are some limitations that with the A7iii I don't have.. but K1 also have some advantages, the 36MP sensor is really nice to crop and to get detail and the ergonomics of Pentax are way better than Sony, the way that you can tilt the screen with the K1 is really good, strange but good, also the custom dial is a really nice feature.

What an excellent, balanced post. Someone with real-world experience of - and obvious respect for - both cameras, giving an honest appraisal of what works best for them and why in a specific use case. Thanks for posting this - and especially for doing so respectfully

There are times when I feel like a mutineer for saying that I prefer my A7 MkII rather than my Pentax gear for manual lens work. But the fact is, no single camera is the ideal tool for everything

[Rondec]

The entire DPReview "worst" camera title is hinged on that which shall be not be spoken the Accelerator Unit. In the video they recommend not to upgrade a K-1 to a K-1MKII which can only mean one thing.

What I found odd is how DPReview never explained how in their previous review of the KP they praised the high ISO handling of the Accelerator Unit as APS-C class leading which contradicts their conclusion the pre-processor in K-1MKII delivers inferior high ISO quality.

The DPR K-1MKII review labeled the one thing the K-1MKII has going image quality into a negative.

I don't mind criticism but at least criticize something that actually exists.

DPReview has a recent interview with Phil Askey the site founder. One thing Askey stressed from the beginning he wanted the testing to be as accurate and repeatable as possible.

I think a lot of what DP Review's opinion hinges on is actually Bill Claff's work on Photons to Photons where he analyzed RAW images and said (rightly) that the accelerator is doing some noise reduction behind the scenes. The question isn't whether that is going on, it is how destructive it is and how much detail is lost to it, etc. That is where folks differ greatly.

Most of us are pragmatists who don't see much difference in images at normal sizes and think it makes processing a bit more efficient. But there is a group of "RAW purists" who believe that anything done to the RAW image is terrible. This irrespective of what the results are. The idea is really that whatever is done in camera can be done better on your computer with the right software and enough time. That is probably accurate as well, but it overlooks the fact that most of us don't own a secondary noise reduction software more than is in Lightroom and that most of us don't really want to take the time running images through such a piece of software if it could be automated prior to import.

[BigMackCam]

What I found odd is how DPReview never explained how in their previous review of the KP they praised the high ISO handling of the Accelerator Unit as APS-C class leading which contradicts their conclusion the pre-processor in K-1MKII delivers inferior high ISO quality.

With the K-1II, there was already a K-1 as a baseline and obvious comparison target. The KP, however, stood on its own.

If you look at the IQ from the K-1II in isolation across the ISO range, it's fantastic. Start comparing it to the K-1, and there are small differences in detail that a few users may find unappealing in the new model, despite obvious advantages in overall colour and luminance noise.

Given what I tend to shoot and the ISO settings I most commonly use, I've come to the conclusion - only just, mind you - that I would choose the K-1II over the K-1; unless the K-1 was at such a bargain price by comparison that I couldn't turn down the opportunity. Both offer fantastic IQ, with slightly different output that could be considered slightly better or worse based on individual use cases...

[reh321]

What an excellent, balanced post. Someone with real-world experience of - and obvious respect for - both cameras, giving an honest appraisal of what works best for them and why in a specific use case. Thanks for posting this - and especially for doing so respectfully

There are times when I feel like a mutineer for saying that I prefer my A7 MkII rather than my Pentax gear for manual lens work. But the fact is, no single camera is the ideal tool for everything

Remember, my question which @kooks addressed was followed by a second question

Why are you generalizing this to all other use cases?

Actually, in my mind the second question was the primary question - the first was a 'setup' question leading to {setting conditions for} this second question. (*) Our older daughter will be married in about two weeks; I, of course, will have other responsibilities during the actual ceremony , but the bridal couple tells me that I will be totally 'free' during the reception - in fact, the groom's father is also interested in photography, and the expectation is that the two of us will spend most of the reception wandering around {perhaps together} with our respective cameras. Beginning with my brother's wedding 29 years ago (**), this will be the third wedding I have taken photos at in the past thirty years; I have had six primary cameras during that time - so weddings are not much of an interest to me personally, and mostly what limited interest I have relates to receptions. Personally, I have no interest in catching the bride as she sprints down the aisle or catching the 'first kiss' at exactly the right moment, so I am personally comfortable with saying that the K-1ii is not great for weddings {I have a KP anyway}. I am guessing the vast majority of cameras sold this past year will never be used to photograph a wedding ceremony. Pentax has said that their primary desire is to produce 'field cameras', so that desire {target} provides the measures that should be used to evaluate their cameras. Presumably they have already determined a business model fitting for that niche.

(*) I had to ask both questions twice before @stubs; gave a brief answer to the first question. I never did see an answer to the second question from him.

(**) when I was 'best man' and my wife took care of my Super Program during the ceremony so that I could take photos during the reception.

[BigMackCam]

Remember, my question which @kooks addressed was followed by a second question

Actually, in my mind the second question was the primary question - the first was a 'setup' question leading to {setting conditions for} this second question. (*) Our older daughter will be married in about two weeks; I, of course, will have other responsibilities during the actual ceremony , but the bridal couple tells me that I will be totally 'free' during the reception - in fact, the groom's father is also interested in photography, and the expectation is that the two of us will spend most of the reception wandering around {perhaps together} with our respective cameras. Beginning with my brother's wedding 29 years ago (**), this will be the third wedding I have taken photos at in the past thirty years; I have had six primary cameras during that time - so weddings are not much of an interest to me personally, and mostly what limited interest I have relates to receptions. Personally, I have no interest in catching the bride as she sprints down the aisle or catching the 'first kiss' at exactly the right moment, so I am personally comfortable with saying that the K-1ii is not great for weddings {I have a KP anyway}. I am guessing the vast majority of cameras sold this past year will never be used to photograph a wedding ceremony. Pentax has said that their primary desire is to produce 'field cameras', so that desire {target} provides the measures that should be used to evaluate their cameras. Presumably they have already determined a business model fitting for that niche.

(*) I had to ask both questions twice before @stubs; gave a brief answer to the first question. I never did see an answer to the second from him.

(**) when I was 'best man' and my wife took care of my Super Program during the ceremony so that I could take photos during the reception.

You'll forgive me, I hope, for not having read the lead-up to kook's last post I read it in isolation... yet, I still see it as a very balanced and respectful appraisal. In fact, one big point I take away from that post is that the K-1 / K-1II works just dandy for weddings, as judged by a professional wedding photographer - it's just that the A7 MkIII, for this particular photographer, has some key advantages

[reh321]

You'll forgive me, I hope, for not having read the lead-up to kook's last post I read it in isolation... yet, I still see it as a very balanced and respectful appraisal. In fact, one big point I take away from that post is that the K-1 / K-1II works just dandy for weddings, as judged by a professional wedding photographer - it's just that the A7 MkIII, for this particular photographer, has some key advantages

You are totally 'forgiven' - the only reason for the post you are responding to is to de-emphasize weddings. I have been primary shooter at just one wedding in my life .... my sister-in-law asked me to be her photographer {an informal affair in a Greenwich Village loft}(*), which I did with the Super Program {manual focus}. I don't claim to be a wedding shooter, and my point is that most of us make no claim to that. If the K-1(ii) does OK that is great .... but we should judge neither that camera nor the future of Pentax by that one use case.

(*) Apparently the following discussion took place after the wedding

loft owner: "Where did you get the photographer from? He was so polite and unobtrusive."

bride: "My sister married him."

[Rondec]

You'll forgive me, I hope, for not having read the lead-up to kook's last post I read it in isolation... yet, I still see it as a very balanced and respectful appraisal. In fact, one big point I take away from that post is that the K-1 / K-1II works just dandy for weddings, as judged by a professional wedding photographer - it's just that the A7 MkIII, for this particular photographer, has some key advantages

My wife shoots weddings with a K-1/K-1 II combo and the only issue she has had is the buffer size. I suppose shooting Pentax over the years lets you compensate for supposed slow-ish auto focus, but she has felt as though with the DFA zooms it locks quickly and is spot on. I'm sure the A9 and A7r III are better, but the K-1 II is no slouch.

[BigMackCam]

You are totally 'forgiven'

Phew!

the only reason for the post you are responding to is to de-emphasize weddings. I have been primary shooter at just one wedding in my life .... my sister-in-law asked me to be her photographer {an informal affair in a Greenwich Village loft}(*), which I did with the Super Program. I don't claim to be a wedding shooter, and my point is that most of us make no claim to that. If the K-1(ii) does OK that is great .... but we should judge neither that camera nor the future of Pentax by that one use case.

Absolutely. I guess each of us has our favourite or most regular use cases, and it's natural that we judge the value of a camera (or lens) based on our own requirements. But it is folly to assume we speak for everyone. I dare say the vast majority of photographers are folks like you and I, who have few (if any) specialist applications and tend to shoot a wide variety of subjects on a mostly (or purely) amateur basis. So if a camera can perform well in that very general application, it probably targets the majority of users well enough.

(*) Apparently the following discussion took place after the wedding

loft owner: "Where did you get the photographer from? He was so polite and unobtrusive."

bride: "My sister married him."

LOL