Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2019, 11:22 PM - 1 Like   #676
Pentaxian
Culture's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vaasa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 792
I guess Tony and Chelsea have seen this thread after the DPReview debacle and decided not to mention anything about Pentax for their 2019 prediction video.


Last edited by Culture; 01-07-2019 at 12:53 AM.
01-07-2019, 12:03 AM   #677
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,912
QuoteOriginally posted by swanlefitte Quote
Lol. I had to wait til a k5iis because of the anti-alias filter and now I stick with it because of the accelerator. 😁
That's a good point. No one made a sharpess test on the K1 mk II in crop mode, I'd be interested to see how K1 II crop vs K1 crop compare. I use crop mode (~15Mp) when I need more reach, and in that particular case I care about detail much more than in full frame mode.
01-07-2019, 02:07 AM - 2 Likes   #678
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 10,018
QuoteOriginally posted by Culture Quote
I guess Tony and Chelsea have seen this thread after the DPReview debacle and decided not to mention anything about Pentax for their 2019 prediction video.
More likely that they cannot get over the fact that Ricoh does not see a point in sending them gear to review.

Alternatively, they may have no clue as to what Ricoh might be doing, in which case they should say exactly that instead of implying that there are no brands worth mentioning beyond Canikony and Fujympus.

Even though Tony gave credit to the K-1 by considering as "possibly the best landscape" camera, in his respective video he went through some ridiculous contortions to make Canon look better (as in comparing Pentax brand new prices to Canon used equipment prices, because if you are buying Pentax you are "bargain hunting"; strangely, the option to buy used Pentax gear does not seem to be available).
01-07-2019, 03:49 AM - 1 Like   #679
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,445
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
A lot of people consider Pentax is slow and other brands are faster to develop new products. It's not quite true. Sony reuse the same bodies between models, and only slightly improved over previous models. Canon offer minor improvement on their 5D series for a long time. Nikon D800 was introduced years ago and the 810 is still for sales. Guys... will have not come down to seeing the reality as it is: a full frame system is expensive and you don't get value for the money by switching from brand to brand, pronsored pros do switch brand Canon to Nikon to Sony to Fuji, but that's because they don't pay gear.
The problem is that there really has not been a lot of improvement in sensor tech over the last five years. Yes, we now have fast read out speeds and you can shoot 20 fps with the right camera and soon be able to do 8K video with the Panasonic camera coming soon, and now you have sensors produced with thousands of PDAF points on the sensor. All great. Lets you track a black cat chasing a bat in a coal mine. But what it doesn't do is give still photographers a whole lot of improvement in actual image quality. And in certain situations, all of these PDAF points actually are significantly detrimental to the final image.

Somehow Astrophotography has turned into a holy grail in this thread and if we are honest, the K-1 is significantly better at astrophotography then nearly any of the more recent Sony or Nikon options.

If you aren't interested in video then most of these updates will just leave you feeling cold.

01-07-2019, 04:59 AM - 3 Likes   #680
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,912
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The problem is that there really has not been a lot of improvement in sensor tech over the last five years.
Definitely, we haven't see meaningful increase of sensor IQ since the migration from CCD to CMOS. And lenses designed in the last 5 years are generally very good. And faster glass than f2.8 doesn't necessarily helps on FF because there are a lot of cases where full frame require to stop down the lenses. I didn't like much the DFA28-105 for some time, until I realized it is the best landscape lens out there... simply because the 105mm is great, and landscape seldom require even f5.6 even at 28mm, but lots of people fail to realize that.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Somehow Astrophotography has turned into a holy grail in this thread and if we are honest, the K-1 is significantly better at astrophotography then nearly any of the more recent Sony or Nikon options.
Astrophotography on the K1 and K1 II is awesome, it is one of the least emphasized unique advantage of Pentax. When hiking at a top of a mountain in summer time, I certainly don't want to carry an equatorial mount to track the stars, having the built in astrotracer of the K1 is definitely an advantage.

In fact, I'm concerned about the negative emphasis on things that we read online. A lot of the time, the negativity is nurtured to the point that it becomes totally disconnected from reality. I think that nurtured negativity is generally destructive for photograph itself because it generate unnecessary stress and takes people's mind away from having the pleasure concentrating on taking photographs instead of worrying about not having the best of the best camera. I believe that nurturing negativity about certain equipment , for the sole purpose of selling new equipment, is what makes some people don't enjoy photography anymore: we have recently seen those video and articles talking about photographers who quit photography.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 01-07-2019 at 05:08 AM.
01-07-2019, 07:13 AM   #681
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,296
QuoteOriginally posted by kevinWE Quote
My concern is “What If”? What if the new releases are less than expected? What if there is no definitive news about R&D progress and advancing the brand? What if all the speculation, hopes, and dreams come tumbling down?

Now, being a realist, I can't live my life through speculation, so the “What If's” mean just as little as the speculations of hope.
Despite this past year, when Pentax released limited FF gear and nothing APS-C {as far as I can remember}, I remain optimistic about the coming Centenary Year. I expect Pentax to again release more FF gear, but I have hopes for those of you waiting for something APS-C also.

As for me, I purchased a KP and a 55-300 PLM lens on Black Friday. I love what my 'accelerator' is delivering for me. For the first time in the Digital Age, my looking forward relates to the photos I will take with my current gear, not to the improvements that will compensate for weaknesses in my current gear. The contents of my bag are perfect for me - which is good because I also have to assume that, at my current age of 71, this may be my last major purchase.

QuoteOriginally posted by kevinWE Quote
Let's just wait and see what happens.Then we all can deal in the facts that are presented to us.
Yes!
01-08-2019, 03:22 AM - 1 Like   #682
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 10,018
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
As I said earlier, you can denoise a RAW containing only noise to your heart's content, and you won't lose any bit of detail - because no detail is there. You can even paint it black, or pink if that's your favorite color.
I guess what you're against of is losing noise, not detail That explains why you don't like the accelerator!
I had practically left this thread but stumbled across some measurements that help to understand that the K-1 II's "accelerator" unit is not able to magically only remove noise but leave signal (detail) intact. I thought I'd share these here, for those interested.

PDN measured the amount of artefacts in K-1 II images due to image processing (jump to "Texture loss" to see the corresponding graphs). This analysis uses the Imatest "Dead Leaves"/"Spilled Coins" charts which support the analysis of how much detail is lost in what spatial frequency band.

This confirms the analysis results by Bill Claff.

Yes, the loss of detail may be considered too small to matter.
Yes, the loss of detail may be considered a welcome trade off against lower noise.

No, it's not an imagined phenomenon.

PDN also confirms the presence of sharpening:
"The K1 Mark II sharpens images more than the K1 did, although both produce relatively little sharpening"
I was surprised to read that the K-1 already used sharpening. It would be very interesting to see the same analysis results for the K-1 and other DSLRs.

EDIT: I'm unsure whether the respective "Image Engineering" test procedures are based on RAW files or certain JPEG settings they describe. I only searched the document describing the procedures instead of reading every word. So technically, the artefacts measurements could be purely based on JPEG files. Seems unlikely but I wouldn't be able to exclude this possibility at this point.

Anyhow, let's hope Ricoh will give us the possibility of opting-out, should they choose to offer in-camera image processing again.
This would have to please everyone.

Last edited by Class A; 01-08-2019 at 04:40 AM.
01-08-2019, 03:40 AM   #683
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,499
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
the K-1 II's "accelerator" unit is not able to magically only remove noise but leave signal (detail) intact.
For the record, I never said that it can. Especially not every type of noise.

L.E. The particular example you were quoting was about an image with no detail whatsoever, that's why it absolutely works.


Last edited by Kunzite; 01-08-2019 at 03:59 AM.
01-08-2019, 03:47 AM - 1 Like   #684
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,291
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote

PDN measured the amount of artefacts in K-1 II images due to image processing (jump to "Texture loss" to see the corresponding graphs). This analysis uses the Imatest "Dead Leaves"/"Spilled Coins" charts which support the analysis of how much detail is lost in what spatial frequency band.
This is one thorough and technical study of the two cameras. Although not much between them, barely even at pixel peeping ISO 100-1600 images, the quantifiable differences are there. This is definitely a geek's test! Very informative.
01-08-2019, 03:51 AM   #685
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,912
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
the K-1 II's "accelerator" unit is not able to magically only remove noise but leave signal (detail) intact.
You don't know. For instance, sigma delta modulation (noise shaping) along with LPF can dramatically improve resolution and reduce noise simultaneously. The noise is strongly attenuated while wanted signal is little affected, gain correction will bring back the wanted signal as needed, and leave the noise behind.
01-08-2019, 04:05 AM   #686
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 12,482
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
You don't know. For instance, sigma delta modulation (noise shaping) along with LPF can dramatically improve resolution and reduce noise simultaneously. The noise is strongly attenuated while wanted signal is little affected, gain correction will bring back the wanted signal as needed, and leave the noise behind.
Isn't that an analogue technique, BE?

01-08-2019, 04:06 AM   #687
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,499
By the way: I'll have to take time to properly read the article, but after a quick glance I've noticed how the measured resolution was higher on the K-1 II compared to the K-1.
Could be sample/test variation. But...
01-08-2019, 04:09 AM - 1 Like   #688
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,445
Let's just stipulate that there is some loss of detail along with the noise. I'm OK with that. The question is not whether that's detectable or even if you can find certain things that at one hundred percent viewing look at tiny bit fuzzier at iso 800 on a K-1 II than a K-1. It is whether this is a meaningful difference.

Each photographer will need to make his own decision there, but for me, it hasn't been a big deal -- certainly not as big a deal as it seems on this thread.
01-08-2019, 04:21 AM   #689
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,291
Anyone able to replicate or seen demonstrated the clear discolouration of shadow detail on pushed under-exposed images from the K-1 II compared with the K-1, as this guy shows?:
01-08-2019, 04:23 AM - 1 Like   #690
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,912
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Isn't that an analogue technique, BE?
Purely digital, it's used in every audio system, it started long ago with audio CDs. On audio CD , the sound is recorded as an oversampled stream of bits (0,1) which itself contains a quantization error (noise) of +-0.5 bit, but the large amount of bits stored on the CD allow to filter out the noise and retain a high fidelity sound signal. As I already wrote, if you take a high res. image sensor and apply some enhanced noise filtering and downsample to lower resolution, you still get an IQ superior to any native low res. sensor. You could take a 5DSr, filter it, and downsample it to 24Mp it would largely beat a Sony A7III in term of image look at high ISO, or you could filter the 5DSr frame and downsample it to 12Mp and beat the A7s at high ISO, but of course there would still be the speed disadvantage of having to acquire and process the 50Mp data for the 5DSr. Downsampling alone wouldn't improve the resulting image IQ as the amount of noise vs signal would remain the same.

The way to appreciate the difference between a K1 and K1 II is to photograph the same scene at the same high ISO setting, and then make a print from each camera and compare them side by side. The print from the K1 II will look slightly better. No one will appreciate favorably the difference between K1 and K1II by pixel peeping.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 01-08-2019 at 04:41 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
2018, 4k, autofocus, camera, dp review, dpr, dpreview, feature, firmware, hand, ibis, k-1 ii, k-1 mark ii, mirror, noise, pentax news, pentax rumors, reduction, review, review puts k-1, reviewers, reviews, sound, subjects, switch, track, tv, youtube
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best and worst of 2018 surfar Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 12-11-2018 05:35 PM
Mark I vs Mark II ISO Comparison Plus Files SirTomster Pentax K-1 64 07-31-2018 01:06 PM
K-3 upgrade to "Mark I" or Mark II neal_grillot Pentax K-1 20 06-01-2018 02:25 AM
DP Review's review of the K-r is up.... ccd333 Pentax K-r 67 03-20-2011 09:41 AM
DP Review modifies K2000 Review jeffkrol Pentax News and Rumors 8 02-05-2009 07:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top