[D1N0]

"Isn't good enough" how, may I ask? That's a genuine question

Okay, what is your highest acceptable ISO on the K-1 for your purposes? What size do you print/display your images to determine this?

I do not understand this statement.(a) Do you mean, a photo taken at 12800 doesn't meet my standards?(b) I need a camera to go higher that 12800 ISO to be useful to me?(c) Something else?

Purely my subjective feeling about what I find acceptable noise in general. Of course it highly depends on lighting conditions. In good lighting high ISO is more usable, but that is only useful when you need high shutter speeds or small apertures. Otherwise you might as well use a lower ISO, because it will look even better. ISO 819200 on the K-1 II is a joke, but if it means my ISO 6400 shots would look better it is OK with me. But as I said I do not think the K-1 II profits a lot from nr at the lower ISO I tend to use like it is the case for the K70 and KP. It will start to be more useful on higher megapixel full frame sensors for me because it's effect will be noticeable more at lower iso.

[Rondec]

This is what the claim is between the Mk I and II. Perhaps if we could present some images to this effect we can demonstrate it, or the lack of it.

Here is an image I shot this morning in the dark -- iso 100, f2.8, and 2.5 second exposure, I think. Deliberately underexposed 5 stops and brightened in Lightroom. Used Huelight's Camera Color Profile. Lens DA 40 limited in full frame mode. I'm sorry the image isn't very interesting and it is still pretty dark even after increasing exposure 5 stops and bumping shadows a little on top of it. I was going to upload the image to Flickr but it doesn't seem to be working this morning, but I may try later.

[bxf]

This thread is expanding faster than I'm able to read it, so I'm not digesting every written detail (my brain's auto-smoothing is on), so perhaps the following has been covered.

My view of the debate is this: would you be likely to want to apply NR (in PP) to those images that are affected by the K1-II's NR? If so, would you do a better job than what the body does automatically i.e. would you do it with less loss of detail? Does the built-in NR prevent you from obtaining the final image that you'd be able to achieve without it?

[Ash]

Here is an image I shot this morning in the dark -- iso 100, f2.8, and 2.5 second exposure, I think. Deliberately underexposed 5 stops and brightened in Lightroom. Used Huelight's Camera Color Profile. Lens DA 40 limited in full frame mode. I'm sorry the image isn't very interesting and it is still pretty dark even after increasing exposure 5 stops and bumping shadows a little on top of it. I was going to upload the image to Flickr but it doesn't seem to be working this morning, but I may try later.

Thanks. I’ll be doing my own tests to see myself but your sample only shows minor magenta casting overall, which I would expect all cameras to produce in those circumstances.

[Ash]

This thread is expanding faster than I'm able to read it, so I'm not digesting every written detail (my brain's auto-smoothing is on), so perhaps the following has been covered.

My view of the debate is this: would you be likely to want to apply NR (in PP) to those images that are affected by the K1-II's NR? If so, would you do a better job than what the body does automatically i.e. would you do it with less loss of detail? Does the built-in NR prevent you from obtaining the final image that you'd be able to achieve without it?

We could get lost in the technicalities of the debate, but the expertise in the field is more at the engineering level rather than the photography level. It’s all very enlightening, and factual, but not for everyone.

In the end it comes down to the intent of the Ricoh engineers on how they wanted the Sony sensor to be tweaked on the K-1 to produce even cleaner high ISO results, as opposed to trying to save the photographer time in PP. Same with PS and DPS with sharpening. Few people whose photos are destined for important prints or publications will send those images SOOC. There will be some PP work to do.

[BigMackCam]

Purely my subjective feeling about what I find acceptable noise in general. Of course it highly depends on lighting conditions. In good lighting high ISO is more usable, but that is only useful when you need high shutter speeds or small apertures. Otherwise you might as well use a lower ISO, because it will look even better. ISO 819200 on the K-1 II is a joke, but if it means my ISO 6400 shots would look better it is OK with me. But as I said I do not think the K-1 II profits a lot from nr at the lower ISO I tend to use like it is the case for the K70 and KP. It will start to be more useful on higher megapixel full frame sensors for me because it's effect will be noticeable more at lower iso.

I will say, looking at ISO 12,800 images from the K-1II, I wouldn't ideally use those photos without a little post-processing to reduce still further the colour noise and a bit of the luminance noise, and bring out just a tiny bit more detail. But it's very simple processing (no extreme processing skills required... just the basics), and - notably - it's at a lower level than for the same images from the K-1 - at least, that's what I've found using review raw files I've found online.

At smaller reproduction sizes though, I think you could get away with shooting at ISO 12,800 with no post-processing. I find that pretty impressive...

[stub]

They disagreed with the fact that it was a new camera. Which it wasnt. Which was why they voted against it. Not because of its quality as a camera. It was just an upgrade.. In my mind they didnt say anything wrong.. Just the Pentaxians being over possesive,,

[BigMackCam]

They disagreed with the fact that it was a new camera. Which it wasnt. Which was why they voted against it. Not because of its quality as a camera. It was just an upgrade.. In my mind they didnt say anything wrong.. Just the Pentaxians being over possesive,,

Yet Ricoh / Pentax never said they were releasing an all-new full frame model, nor touted the K-1II as a completely new camera... heck, they even named it as a MkII version of the same camera, and offered a board swap to make the K-1 equivalent. DPR might have hoped for a bigger upgrade in features and performance... fair enough; but if they expected anything more than an upgrade, we might reasonably argue they missed the obvious... The clue was in the name, right??

[Ash]

Yet Ricoh / Pentax never said they were releasing an all-new full frame model, nor touted the K-1II as a completely new camera... heck, they even named it as a MkII version of the same camera, and offered a board swap to make the K-1 equivalent. DPR might have hoped for a bigger upgrade in features and performance... fair enough; but if they expected anything more than an upgrade, we might reasonably argue they missed the obvious... The clue was in the name, right??

Canon probably set people’s minds up with high expectations with each iteration of the 5D.

[BigMackCam]

Canon probably set people’s minds up with high expectations with each iteration of the 5D.

Probably

But there was plenty of evidence as to what a Pentax "Mark II" model might be like. K-5 vs K-5II vs K-5IIs, K-3 vs K-3II...

[Ash]

Probably



But there was plenty of evidence as to what a Pentax "Mark II" model might be like. K-5 vs K-5II vs K-5IIs, K-3 vs K-3II...

Yep. Pentax is more true to form here. Perhaps those who want to malign Pentax don’t want to consider that.

[stub]

Yet Ricoh / Pentax never said they were releasing an all-new full frame model, nor touted the K-1II as a completely new camera... heck, they even named it as a MkII version of the same camera, and offered a board swap to make the K-1 equivalent. DPR might have hoped for a bigger upgrade in features and performance... fair enough; but if they expected anything more than an upgrade, we might reasonably argue they missed the obvious... The clue was in the name, right??

Not sure that quite so true...
RICOH IMAGING EUROPE S.A.S. is pleased to announce the launch of an upgrade service that allows existing PENTAX K-1 users to add the advanced functions of the new PENTAX K-1 Mark II to their camera.

They did discontinue the K1. It just hung around so long because they couldn't sell the pre manufactured stock so quickly. They hoped it would attract owners from other brands in large numbers. But the truth is it didn't...!!

[BigMackCam]

Not sure that quite so true...
RICOH IMAGING EUROPE S.A.S. is pleased to announce the launch of an upgrade service that allows existing PENTAX K-1 users to add the advanced functions of the new PENTAX K-1 Mark II to their camera.

Well, sure, it was "new"... As in, it was a new product rather than an existing one. They didn't produce the K-1II concurrently with the K-1, so it had to be new, obviously. But if it had been a completely new product - a big change in technology and features - they'd have named it the K-2 (or whatever)... not the K-1 II. As I said in my reply to Ash, there's plenty of evidence of previous recent Pentax products to show what Pentax means by a mark II product... just look at the K-5II, or the K-3II (both of which DPR reviewed).

They did discontinue the K1. It just hung around so long because they couldn't sell the pre manufactured stock so quickly.

This isn't unique to Pentax Haven't you noticed how long other discontinued products remain available from other manufacturers? There's always plenty of stock of the old models available for long after they're discontinued. That happens with Nikon, Canon and all of the other manufacturers too. Sony has even made a product strategy out of it by continuing to offer the old models as "current" alongside the new versions

They hoped it would attract owners from other brands in large numbers. But the truth is it didn't...!!

Ricoh never said that was their intent. Though, we have seen numerous articles and reviews online and in magazines suggesting that folks from other brands have embraced the K-1. I can't say what the numbers are, so if you have them, please share? Otherwise, both of us are arguing the point with no relevant data except for our personal perception In which case, maybe we can both admit that these are our opinions rather than facts. I'll go first... I have no data, these are just my opinions

[Fenwoodian]

Probably

But there was plenty of evidence as to what a Pentax "Mark II" model might be like. K-5 vs K-5II vs K-5IIs, K-3 vs K-3II...

.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your saying that the K-3 to K-3ii was not a big upgrade. That was a HUGE upgrade. The K3ii was the first Pentax camera to have Pixel Shift and Astro. Both of these are really big deals!!!

[BigMackCam]

.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your saying that the K-3 to K-3ii was not a big upgrade. That was a HUGE upgrade. The K3ii was the first Pentax camera to have Pixel Shift and Astro. Both of these are really big deals!!!

I never said the K-3II wasn't a big upgrade on the K-3, Dave. I acknowledge it was a significant upgrade - and yet, still exactly the same basic platform in terms of the main hadrware. I dare say, had they chosen to, Pentax could have offered a board swap to give the K-3 the pixel-shift capability (what they couldn't have swapped out was the flash unit for the GPS, and hence the astro features). The K-3II is the K-3 with some additional / swapped-out facilities - same sensor, same baseline capabilities, same IQ (short of the new pixel shift), same body, etc. In a very similar way, the K-1 and K-1II share the same basic platform, but the K-1II has some new / swapped-out features - the accelerator, hand-held pixel-shift etc. - in this case, isolated to the main board, which was - remarkably - offered as an upgrade to K-1 owners

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, I like Pentax's "MkII upgrade" cameras. I don't see them as all-new ground-breaking models, and don't understand why review sites with an ounce of sense would either. Rather, I see them as adding value to an already-proven platform, and I judge them on that basis