Hi,
So I recently picked up a K1 after being a long time Canon user. I've had the K1 for about a week now, and there are some things I really like and a few that I'm not crazy about (mainly focus speed/accuracy).
Tonight I figured I sit down and do a little side by side comparison of my old Canon 5d Mark ii (which came out in 2008) and this shiny new K1. The results were a little surprising to me.
I shot both at f/8 1/100 and iso 1600 and in raw (dng). I then made some very minor adjustments to sharpness and noise reduction (as I would in the real world). I cut and paste the settings to both images.
I've attached both to this post, the K1 is the SDP file and the 5Dii is the IMG file.
The first thing that strikes me is how much brighter iso 1600 is on the canon than it is on the K1. Anyone know why this is?
The second thing is how much more saturated the canon image is, the colors just look better in general.
I think the noise is a little lower on the K1 and there is certainly a bit more detail as it's 36mp compared to 22mp. But honestly, to me, the canon files look better. I was not expecting this at all.
Am I doing something wrong? Have other people done similar comparisons? I really want to love this K1 as I like a lot of the features, but if it can't keep up with an 8 year old camera I'll probably just wait out the 5D iv (and spend way more $$$...)
Any help is appreciated!