Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**Ric** · 04-03-2017, 08:43 PM

I just read the K-1 review posted here on PF. The reviewer I thought gave it quite high marks even on things that other reviewers tend to downgrade like AF and video. What I thought was very interesting in the conclusion under cons was Poor JPEG quality. Now I've heard some reviewers say the JPEGS were okay, not that great, some like them and said the JPEG's were fine. For those of you who own a K-1 or are familiar with it (unlike me) what is your experience of the JPEG quality on the K-1. I hope to get one someday. At present I have a K-5. Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG so it should not be a big deal right? Still it would be good to know you can get decent JPEGS if needed. I'd be so grateful for anyone's take on this.

Sandy Hancock · 04-03-2017, 08:54 PM

I always shoot RAW, so the quality of the in-camera JPEG engine is irrelevant to me. So yes, for the way you shoot I wouldn't worry.

That said, I think it's a bit rich to call the K-1 JPEGs poor - it's just that Fuji (among others?) do them better.

SpecialK · 04-03-2017, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Ric

Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG

If you are a raw shooter you should be unconcerned with camera jpg quality which is no doubt fine, anyway. Perhaps the reviewer did not know how to maximize the settings.

Ole · 04-03-2017, 09:32 PM - **2 Likes**

The K-1 JPG engine tends to remove fine detail which is evident if you compare the JPG image to the same image developed from RAW. It is not any worse than the JPG engine in the K-5, though, so if you're happy with JPGs from the K-5 you'll be happy with the K-1, too. When we reviewed the K-1 we just found it disappointing that the JPG engine wasn't better than it is considering how great a camera the K-1 is in other aspects. That said, as SpecialK hints at, if you fiddle around with the sharpness and contrast options on the K-1 you may be able to improve matters some.

We're currently reviewing the KP and from what we have seen so far it would appear that the JPG engine is superior to all previous Pentax DSLRs to such degree that shooting JPG rather than RAW could be an option for all but the most critical work.

Winder · 04-03-2017, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Ric

I just read the K-1 review posted here on PF. The reviewer I thought gave it quite high marks even on things that other reviewers tend to downgrade like AF and video. What I thought was very interesting in the conclusion under cons was Poor JPEG quality. Now I've heard some reviewers say the JPEGS were okay, not that great, some like them and said the JPEG's were fine. For those of you who own a K-1 or are familiar with it (unlike me) what is your experience of the JPEG quality on the K-1. I hope to get one someday. At present I have a K-5. Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG so it should not be a big deal right? Still it would be good to know you can get decent JPEGS if needed. I'd be so grateful for anyone's take on this.

It depends on your taste, but the factory default settings are poor. If you play with the setting you can get very good results. You definitely have to spend more time adjusting the factory settings, but yes you can get good results. Hopefully Ricoh improves the JPEG engine with a firmware upgrade.

Adam · 04-03-2017, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Ric

I just read the K-1 review posted here on PF. The reviewer I thought gave it quite high marks even on things that other reviewers tend to downgrade like AF and video. What I thought was very interesting in the conclusion under cons was Poor JPEG quality. Now I've heard some reviewers say the JPEGS were okay, not that great, some like them and said the JPEG's were fine. For those of you who own a K-1 or are familiar with it (unlike me) what is your experience of the JPEG quality on the K-1. I hope to get one someday. At present I have a K-5. Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG so it should not be a big deal right? Still it would be good to know you can get decent JPEGS if needed. I'd be so grateful for anyone's take on this.

The issue with the Pentax JPEG engine is that it unnecessarily smears details, especially when noise reduction is involved. Color accuracy is also debatable, but IMO a lesser issue.

The former has been improved greatly in the KP and K-70, which use the new "image accelerator" chip to apply more complex processing. JPEG files from those two cameras are close to being as clean as K-1 JPEGs as far as noise goes. I'm not sure if those improvements can be applied retroactively without better hardware.

D1N0 · 04-04-2017, 02:38 AM

Some people recommend tweaking the sharpness settings by turning it to "extra sharpness" small radius sharpening. Then tweak it with the +/- bar. Also turn NR off. (this only works in extra sharpness not on the other sharpness modes which also have a larger sharpness radius). You can find under in the color settings button on the four way controller on the back.

**beachgardener** · 04-04-2017, 03:40 AM

raw+jpg is my preferred, very happy with the resulting jpgs, and so customisable too

C57 · 04-11-2017, 02:50 PM - **1 Like**

[ATTACH]351809[/ATTACH I have a K3 which I have used for a number of trips and for birding so want sharp pic. Have used the K1 now for over a month and see no diference in jpeg sharpness. I have a pentax ful frame 70 - 200 lens do find it sharper than DA lenses on the proper setting. Perhaps that is the difference. Your software program also makes a difference. I attached a photo taken with jpeg and 70 - 200 lens.

Racer X 69 · 04-11-2017, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by C57

[ATTACH]351809[/ATTACH I have a K3 which I have used for a number of trips and for birding so want sharp pic. Have used the K1 now for over a month and see no diference in jpeg sharpness. I have a pentax ful frame 70 - 200 lens do find it sharper than DA lenses on the proper setting. Perhaps that is the difference. Your software program also makes a difference. I attached a photo taken with jpeg and 70 - 200 lens.

Nice photo. Very sharp too.

Oh, and welcome to the clubhouse!

**microlight** · 04-12-2017, 02:59 AM

Welcome. Another RAW shooter here, so I'm not concerned about my JPG engine. I save RAW to both cards in case of card failure; it would be easy enough to create a JPG in-camera should I need one, although on the occasions I've processed in-camera, it was to TIFF.

**sibyrnes** · 04-12-2017, 08:27 AM

I don't understand the complaint about JPEG quality. There seems to be enough adjustments and options in the K1 to make the JPEGs look anyway you want. I only shoot RAW and it seems to me that anyone really concerned about image quality should do the same.

C57, that is a nice photo but you know if you shot it in RAW you would be able to recover some of the detail lost in the shadows - just sayin'

stevebrot · 04-12-2017, 08:44 AM - **1 Like**

I have heard rumors of a firmware upgrade that will include Canon JPEG emulation as a custom image type. Promised attributes are colors not found in nature, contrast that will wow your friends and built-in ruddy glow and smoothing for Caucasian skin tones.

(...just kidding...)

Steve

**Ric** · 04-18-2017, 12:15 PM

Thanks for the informative replies. Appreciate your input as always.

**eaglem** · 04-19-2017, 03:57 PM

I shoot in jpeg only and find nothing wrong with the way the Pentax K-1 produces the shots. Images are sharp and colour is true to nature. No jpeg complaints from me.

04-03-2017, 08:43 PM	#1
Ric Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 143	Poor JPEG quality I just read the K-1 review posted here on PF. The reviewer I thought gave it quite high marks even on things that other reviewers tend to downgrade like AF and video. What I thought was very interesting in the conclusion under cons was Poor JPEG quality. Now I've heard some reviewers say the JPEGS were okay, not that great, some like them and said the JPEG's were fine. For those of you who own a K-1 or are familiar with it (unlike me) what is your experience of the JPEG quality on the K-1. I hope to get one someday. At present I have a K-5. Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG so it should not be a big deal right? Still it would be good to know you can get decent JPEGS if needed. I'd be so grateful for anyone's take on this.

04-03-2017, 10:05 PM	#6
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,609	Originally posted by Ric I just read the K-1 review posted here on PF. The reviewer I thought gave it quite high marks even on things that other reviewers tend to downgrade like AF and video. What I thought was very interesting in the conclusion under cons was Poor JPEG quality. Now I've heard some reviewers say the JPEGS were okay, not that great, some like them and said the JPEG's were fine. For those of you who own a K-1 or are familiar with it (unlike me) what is your experience of the JPEG quality on the K-1. I hope to get one someday. At present I have a K-5. Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG so it should not be a big deal right? Still it would be good to know you can get decent JPEGS if needed. I'd be so grateful for anyone's take on this. The issue with the Pentax JPEG engine is that it unnecessarily smears details, especially when noise reduction is involved. Color accuracy is also debatable, but IMO a lesser issue. The former has been improved greatly in the KP and K-70, which use the new "image accelerator" chip to apply more complex processing. JPEG files from those two cameras are close to being as clean as K-1 JPEGs as far as noise goes. I'm not sure if those improvements can be applied retroactively without better hardware. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Poor, poor Florida	jeffkrol	General Talk	8	04-01-2011 01:32 PM
Poor poor Huckabee	jogiba	General Talk	16	03-05-2011 09:16 AM
K-5 Poor quality of embedded JPEG	boardhead	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	17	11-11-2010 07:32 AM
Poor, poor Rand Paul	jeffkrol	General Talk	18	10-19-2010 01:57 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM

04-03-2017, 08:54 PM	#2
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,276	I always shoot RAW, so the quality of the in-camera JPEG engine is irrelevant to me. So yes, for the way you shoot I wouldn't worry. That said, I think it's a bit rich to call the K-1 JPEGs *poor* - it's just that Fuji (among others?) do them better.

04-03-2017, 09:02 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	Originally posted by Ric Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG If you are a raw shooter you should be unconcerned with camera jpg quality which is no doubt fine, anyway. Perhaps the reviewer did not know how to maximize the settings.

04-03-2017, 09:32 PM - 2 Likes	#4
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,409	The K-1 JPG engine tends to remove fine detail which is evident if you compare the JPG image to the same image developed from RAW. It is not any worse than the JPG engine in the K-5, though, so if you're happy with JPGs from the K-5 you'll be happy with the K-1, too. When we reviewed the K-1 we just found it disappointing that the JPG engine wasn't better than it is considering how great a camera the K-1 is in other aspects. That said, as SpecialK hints at, if you fiddle around with the sharpness and contrast options on the K-1 you may be able to improve matters some. We're currently reviewing the KP and from what we have seen so far it would appear that the JPG engine is superior to all previous Pentax DSLRs to such degree that shooting JPG rather than RAW could be an option for all but the most critical work.

04-03-2017, 09:46 PM	#5
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Ric I just read the K-1 review posted here on PF. The reviewer I thought gave it quite high marks even on things that other reviewers tend to downgrade like AF and video. What I thought was very interesting in the conclusion under cons was Poor JPEG quality. Now I've heard some reviewers say the JPEGS were okay, not that great, some like them and said the JPEG's were fine. For those of you who own a K-1 or are familiar with it (unlike me) what is your experience of the JPEG quality on the K-1. I hope to get one someday. At present I have a K-5. Most if not all the time I shoot RAW and convert to JPEG so it should not be a big deal right? Still it would be good to know you can get decent JPEGS if needed. I'd be so grateful for anyone's take on this. It depends on your taste, but the factory default settings are poor. If you play with the setting you can get very good results. You definitely have to spend more time adjusting the factory settings, but yes you can get good results. Hopefully Ricoh improves the JPEG engine with a firmware upgrade.

04-04-2017, 02:38 AM	#7
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Some people recommend tweaking the sharpness settings by turning it to "extra sharpness" small radius sharpening. Then tweak it with the +/- bar. Also turn NR off. (this only works in extra sharpness not on the other sharpness modes which also have a larger sharpness radius). You can find under in the color settings button on the four way controller on the back.

04-04-2017, 03:40 AM	#8
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	raw+jpg is my preferred, very happy with the resulting jpgs, and so customisable too

04-11-2017, 02:55 PM	#10
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,077	Originally posted by C57 [ATTACH]351809[/ATTACH I have a K3 which I have used for a number of trips and for birding so want sharp pic. Have used the K1 now for over a month and see no diference in jpeg sharpness. I have a pentax ful frame 70 - 200 lens do find it sharper than DA lenses on the proper setting. Perhaps that is the difference. Your software program also makes a difference. I attached a photo taken with jpeg and 70 - 200 lens. Nice photo. Very sharp too. Oh, and welcome to the clubhouse!

04-12-2017, 02:59 AM	#11
microlight Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,129	Welcome. Another RAW shooter here, so I'm not concerned about my JPG engine. I save RAW to both cards in case of card failure; it would be easy enough to create a JPG in-camera should I need one, although on the occasions I've processed in-camera, it was to TIFF.

04-12-2017, 08:27 AM	#12
sibyrnes Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 447	I don't understand the complaint about JPEG quality. There seems to be enough adjustments and options in the K1 to make the JPEGs look anyway you want. I only shoot RAW and it seems to me that anyone really concerned about image quality should do the same. C57, that is a nice photo but you know if you shot it in RAW you would be able to recover some of the detail lost in the shadows - just sayin'

04-12-2017, 08:44 AM - 1 Like	#13
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	I have heard rumors of a firmware upgrade that will include Canon JPEG emulation as a custom image type. Promised attributes are colors not found in nature, contrast that will wow your friends and built-in ruddy glow and smoothing for Caucasian skin tones. (...just kidding...) Steve

04-18-2017, 12:15 PM	#14
Ric Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 143 Original Poster	Thanks for the informative replies. Appreciate your input as always.

04-19-2017, 03:57 PM	#15
eaglem Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 43,166	I shoot in jpeg only and find nothing wrong with the way the Pentax K-1 produces the shots. Images are sharp and colour is true to nature. No jpeg complaints from me.