[dagoban]

The OP's test is interesting, yet the K-1 was shot at f/16 while all other compared cameras are shot at f/22. Why?

The best had would be to use the same lens for the 3 cameras, but that's is very difficult. The lens used with the k1 is the zeiss planar 50 mm f1,7. Minimal aperture in that case is f16 instead of the f22 of the nikkor micro 55 mm f2.8 (D810) or the canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (5D mark IV).

[normhead]

The best had would be to use the same lens for the 3 cameras, but that's is very difficult. The lens used with the k1 is the zeiss planar 50 mm f1,7. Minimal aperture in that case is f16 instead of the f22 of the nikkor micro 55 mm f2.8 (D810) or the canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (5D mark IV).

That's why Imaging Resources uses the Sigma 70 whenever possible. It's available for most mounts, and is compatable with both APS-c and FF.

[kaspy]

That's why Imaging Resources uses the Sigma 70 whenever possible. It's available for most mounts, and is compatable with both APS-c and FF.

Good point (could apply to the Planar too if they had access). One observation is that I don't know if the Canon's lens is the best example from that system to go head to head against a couple primes. At least I think we here would object if the 5Div had the Planar and K1 the DFA28-105 (as much as I'm very happy with that lens).

Nice to see more examples of the K1 head to head with these other excellent bodies. Thanks OP and Dan Rentea

As for marketing, I think Pentax did the right thing just by putting out a fullframe body. It adds legitimacy to the entire system. Canon/Nikon sell loads of entry level bodies (arguably overpriced for what they offer) on the strength of their highly regarded pro lineups, even if 99.9% will never follow that so called upgrade path. I would assume that a boost in APSC market share through the K1 was one of the motivations for FF. Of course I'm not an industry insider so that is to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Dan Rentea]

Good point (could apply to the Planar too if they had access). One observation is that I don't know if the Canon's lens is the best example from that system to go head to head against a couple primes. At least I think we here would object if the 5Div had the Planar and K1 the DFA28-105 (as much as I'm very happy with that lens).

Nice to see more examples of the K1 head to head with these other excellent bodies. Thanks OP and Dan Rentea

As for marketing, I think Pentax did the right thing just by putting out a fullframe body. It adds legitimacy to the entire system. Canon/Nikon sell loads of entry level bodies (arguably overpriced for what they offer) on the strength of their highly regarded pro lineups, even if 99.9% will never follow that so called upgrade path. I would assume that a boost in APSC market share through the K1 was one of the motivations for FF. Of course I'm not an industry insider so that is to be taken with a grain of salt.

K1 is a very capable camera, no question about that. Image quality is superb, build quality is very good. DFA 24-70mm is quite good also. It's fun to have the chance to use both cameras (5D Mark IV and K1).

5D Mark IV has a better mettering system and also a much better general Af. K1 has an accurate and precise af also, but it takes a little longer to lock focus in some circumstances. Tracking capabilities are another story... Canon is way ahead when comes to tracking, number of fps and preview images after 5-6 consecutive images taken (K1 is very slow to clear the buffer, even with fast SanDisk memory cards).

However, for the money you pay for K1 you get a very capable camera which in most cases will be a very good option for a lot of photographers, myself included. Is 5D Mark IV twice as good if we speak about price difference? I'm not sure it is. I tend to say no, not at all, at least now that I had the chance to play with both. Yes, 5D Mark IV is more responsive, faster and for weddings it will be better than K1. Of that I'm certain. If you are a Canon user, 5D Mark IV worth every penny as an upgrade from 6D/5D Mark III.

As for K1, I would have no problem shooting with it weddings, portaits, or landscapes where I think is unbeatable by any other DSLR. Is K1 worth the money? Oh yes, of that I'm certain. K1 inspired me more confidence than K3 II, the grip is much better, at least for me (with K-3 II, my little finger was always under the camera and I had to use an external grip for perfect handling).

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 02-18-2017 at 07:38 AM.

[colodion]

Ya, that's a bummer. Thanks for investigating. I kept thinking, "there shouldn't be that much difference, and even the K-1 image looks soft compared to some of my results" . ƒ16 and ƒ22 would explain both those things.

Thanks everyone by comment.
It would have been better to use three objectives, for example a 50 mm Sigma, with three mounts, if we could get them could repeat the tests that would be more uniform, in this case with Canon and Olympus used a zum which are always somewhat less crisp than a fixed, the first a Canon EF 24 - 105 mm f / 4 L IS USM and the second an Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40 mm f/2.8 PRO Lens with the D750, D810 and D7200 used the Nikon micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8-22 AIS and Pentax K1 Planar 50mm f1, 7-16.

[colodion]

We are preparing a comparison of the k1 with the zum Pentax 28-105 to balance the result of the Canon 24-105.

A scoop made with the 28-105 to 6400 ISO and f22

[Dan Rentea]

We are preparing a comparison of the k1 with the zum Pentax 28-105 to balance the result of the Canon 24-105.

A scoop made with the 28-105 to 6400 ISO and f22

Interesting. I'm looking forward to see the comparation, but please, use real subjects in real shooting conditions. I'm certain that K1 has a little advantage when comes to details due to the lack of AA filter and also due to the little extra resolution, but no one is photographing at f22...

I will have another corporate shooting in 2 weeks and I think I will have the chance to do another test with K1 and 5D Mark IV. This time I will use my friend (and assistant at the same time) for some shots with both cameras so that I don't have to ask client's permission to use the images.

Here is another "example" where you can see that both cameras (5D Mark IV and K1) are quite close in terms of image quality, at least for portrait work.

Left image: 5D Mark IV with 70-200mm f4L IS USM @ 78mm, f7.1, ISO 200, 1/100s
Right image: K1, DFA 24-70mm f2.8 @ 70mm, f7.1, ISO 200, 1/100s
The image from bellow: 6D, 70-200mm f4L IS USM @ 70mm, f7.1, ISO 200, 1/100s

There are a little more details in K1's image, but the difference is small and visible just when you zoom on both images by 100%, as I did in my example.

Even my 6D did a very good job, but the lack of details becomes visible when you see the images from above. The client didn't had a clue that there have been used 3 different cameras, so as far as I'm concern, even with a K5 the results had been the same in the client's eyes. We are the ones interested in seeing those tiny differences at 100% magnification, but for most of the clients any DSLR/mirrorless released in the last 4 years can get the job done, at least for portrait work. If you work for agencies and they often need to print large, then K1, 5DsR, D810 can be handy (if you don't have the money to buy medium format).

post images

[biz-engineer]

Interesting. I'm looking forward to see the comparation, but please, use real subjects in real shooting conditions. I'm certain that K1 has a little advantage when comes to details due to the lack of AA filter and also due to the little extra resolution, but no one is photographing at f22...

Wooaaaaa such a good argument :-)

---------- Post added 20-02-17 at 23:37 ----------

Even my 6D did a very good job, but the lack of details becomes visible when you see the images from above.

If you use human face, especially young, the requirement of resolution is low because there is no high frequency information in the image. In imaging tech, resolution is always relative to subject content, photography isn't limited at portraiture.

---------- Post added 20-02-17 at 23:39 ----------

We are preparing a comparison of the k1 with the zum Pentax 28-105 to balance the result of the Canon 24-105. A scoop made with the 28-105 to 6400 ISO and f22

Thanks for the comparison. Those pictures speak for themselves.

[Dan Rentea]

Wooaaaaa such a good argument :-)

Regarding real tests (in real situations) vs. shooting bills, well... for product photography I use tripod and ISO 100, not ISO 6400 and f22. I also try to use an aperture below f13 or I use focus stalking technique for some product shots. You can use f16 - f22 as much as you like on your subjects. For me a test is concludent if the scenario is close enough to reality. Shooting bills at f22, ISO 6400 and controled lightning is not close to my reality. For the same reason I don't follow DXO tests, although they are so popular among some.

But I'm excited that the OP is going to do further tests with both cameras and lenses and I'm hoping to see real world tests. Shooting side by side with these 2 cameras is a joy, why losing time in studio doing tests that have already been done by others? I mean, similar tests can be seen at DPreview, Imaging Resources, etc.

If you use human face, especially young, the requirement of resolution is low because there is no high frequency information in the image. In imaging tech, resolution is always relative to subject content, photography isn't limited at portraiture.

Well, I don't shoot landscapes. And I've tested K1 vs. 5D Mark IV only on human subjects. What's the point in doing a comparation of these 2 cameras by shooting landscape since I know already that K1 is better for landscape?

For weddings, 5D Mark IV is better than K1 due to smaller files, better af and better flash system. I can shoot weddings without any problem with K1 because the af is accurate and fast enough for someone who didn't handled 5D Mark IV. Even for those who did tried 5D Mark IV (myself included), K1's af is decent enough to shoot weddings.

For BIF there is no contest between these 2 cameras. Canon has 7fps, very fast file processing system (it clears the buffer super fast, K1 is so slow to process...), super fast and precise af...

For landscape, macro or product photography, K1 is better. For BIF, weddings, photojurnalism, 5D Mark IV is better.

[colodion]

Thanks for the comments, having no filter AA of the k1 makes the images have a higher resolution and is able to take small details like the pupil of the eye that the 5D-6D are not able. For a photo advertising would not serve. The Pentax 24 70 f2.8 for portrait is good but has less resolution than the Pentax 28-105 or Canon 24 105. According to ephotozine Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 ED SDM WR Review 24-70mm-f-2-8-ed-sdm-wr-review-29349 f5.6 has a resolution of 2800 LW / PH in the center and 2700 in the edges, while the 28-105 f3.5-5.6 has almost 3100 LW / PH in center and edges. The Canon 24 105 f4 reaches almost 4000 LW / PH in the center and 3300 in the edges. In the tests I have done, the Canon gains in sharpness. When the weather improves we will do a test of the cameras in the exterior, for me the tests with a color chart are more enlightening and easier to check.
In the link of the beginning are the complete tests to all the Isos and diaphragms, 5D Mark lV, D810, D750, OMD EM1 Mar ll

[Dan Rentea]

When the weather improves we will do a test of the cameras in the exterior, for me the tests with a color chart are more enlightening and easier to check.

Thank you. It will be interesting to see tests with both cameras taken in different enviroments. If the purpose of this test is to see which camera has better details, then ok, I understand and agree that K1 has better details than 5D Mark IV or than all the other cameras you listed.

Unfortunately, we don't have ideal shooting conditions as much as we want to, and field tests in various conditions are the ones which I personally prefer. I said for example that I have no problem in shooting weddings with K1 and it's true. But to be fair, in my short experience with both cameras, K1 needs:
- a little extra time to lock focus in some rooms with little light, especially if I change the focus point from a person standing at a distance of 2m from me to a person standing at 4-6m. It's accurate thorough and this is important to mention.
- It also needs a lot of extra time to process data if you shoot 7-9 consecutive images in a burst, while Canon's processing is very fast.
- flash exposure was a little unconsistent in TTL, at least with the 540FZG flash that I had to work with. Bouncing flash on the celing gave me mixt results (one of 4 images was overexposed).
- handling was great on both cameras, but this is subject to personal preferences.

I would like to see this kind of reports and feedback from users who have acces to both systems. There are enough test charts on the internet and everybody knows already that image quality is one of the the most important selling point of the K1 and that is better than competition in this regard.

[colodion]

The K1 is very slow processing and saving the rauws, but there are many functions that slow down the processing time even block continuous shooting , Clarity, Skin Tone, correction of lens such as diffraction, nois, etc.
The more we go, the slower it gets.
In Crop mode it disables many and the speed is not reduced.

[biz-engineer]

Unfortunately, we don't have ideal shooting conditions as much as we want to, and field tests in various conditions are the ones which I personally prefer.

Uncontrolled environment tests have no value because they are not repeatable.

[Na Horuk]

The K1 is very slow processing and saving the rauws, but there are many functions that slow down the processing time even block continuous shooting ,

Most of those functions do not affect the raw. They only affect the jpeg (and the jpeg preview in the dng). So if you shoot raw, you can disable all of those (shadow correction, CA correction, diffraction correction, distortion correction,...). But you are right, these functions use a lot of CPU so it takes more time to process each image.

[biz-engineer]

Most of those functions do not affect the raw. They only affect the jpeg (and the jpeg preview in the dng). So if you shoot raw, you can disable all of those (shadow correction, CA correction, diffraction correction, distortion correction,...). But you are right, these functions use a lot of CPU so it takes more time to process each image.

Depends style of shooting. Spray and pray is very demanding and low yield because a lot of photos aren't framed correctly. Pressing the AF button and pressing the shutter for short bursts only when the subject is decently framed is a lot more effective, the K1 can shoot forever in that case. A comparison would be the D500 that can shoot continuously 10 frames per second, but most of the frames are either redundant or have no interest. Even D800 and D810 owners will tell you that as well...