[pihe]

Fellas,

I made a few test images available on flickr, made with the Pentax K-1 II. These are in-camera JPEGs with the final, production firmware. All settings were Auto, except for WB which was set prior shooting. The used lens was a Pentax-FA 43/1,9 Ltd at F/8. Camera was set to normal picture mode (default is bright), center-weighted. AF was set to spot (center AF point).

Pentax K-1 II ISO (In-camera JPEGs) | Flickr

I repeated the same sequence with the original K-1 with the same settings, available here:

Pentax K-1 I ISO 100 | In-camera JPEG Unprocessed All settin? | Flickr

In the next days, I will update the stream with handheld pixelshift images processed with DIgital Camera Utility.

Have fun!

[xabolcs]

Thank you, it looks great; but I was just stuck at the K-30

[pentageek]

Thanks! Looking forward to pixel shift pictures.

[pid]

thats surprising, the K1 looks better than the K1II at 25600 and 51200 and 102400!
K1 seems to show finer details.
Can you verify that?

[gylfimag]

Very interesting. I am sure we will see more comparisons in the days to come as the K-1 II starts arriving in photographers' hands. These photos are a bit disappointing though, it is hard to see any improvement from the (already excellent, of course) K-1. I frankly can't tell which camera took which photo when they are set to the same ISO. The extra high ISO settings that have been added result in horrible photos, lots of grain, weird colors and banding so they are for all practical purposes useless except, perhaps, for small images converted to black and white. Maybe the K-1 II will show some improvement over the original when shooting in RAW rather than jpeg and post-processing carefully, if not, I don't see any point in upgrading.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks for posting these, Sjabolcs

Part of the problem here is the in-camera JPEG engine. Lightroom will do a far better job of both luminance and, especially, colour noise reduction on RAW files. I'm looking forward to seeing some high ISO (12,800 - 51,200) RAW files from both cameras side by side. I don't think we can make any assessment on the basis of SOOC JPEG images, although it's interesting to see them.

[pihe]

I have same thoughts. Results look more or less the same and frankly, I wouldn't push the sensitivity past the K-1's limit.

As spoiler, from the first pixelshift photos I can tell, handheld works like a charm. Processing time is a bit sluggish but the results are nice.

---------- Post added 03-28-2018 at 03:50 AM ----------

Thanks for posting these, Sjabolcs

Part of the problem here is the in-camera JPEG engine. Lightroom will do a far better job of both luminance and, especially, colour noise reduction on RAW files. I'm looking forward to seeing some high ISO (12,800 - 51,200) RAW files from both cameras side by side. I don't think we can make any assessment on the basis of SOOC JPEG images, although it's interesting to see them.

You're absolutely right, JPEG stays JPEG. I will sum everything up in a short video review, probably early next week, and also include download links to the original RAW files, so you can judge the outcome. My youtube channel is at Szabolcs József Csörge - YouTube and though it's Hungarian, I usually do English subs.

[BigMackCam]

I will sum everything up in a short video review, probably early next week, and also include download links to the original RAW files

That would be extremely helpful... Thanks for your efforts. I'm looking forward to seeing the results

[Igor123]

...I will sum everything up in a short video review, probably early next week, and also include download links to the original RAW files, so you can judge the outcome. My youtube channel is at Szabolcs József Csörge - YouTube and though it's Hungarian, I usually do English subs.

Great, looking forward to it! The question for me has always been if the accelerator adds anything pp of raws can't do, downloadable raws with the same settings and optics of mk1 and mk2 would be very helpful, thanks!

[Not a Number]

Thanks for posting these, Sjabolcs

Part of the problem here is the in-camera JPEG engine. Lightroom will do a far better job of both luminance and, especially, colour noise reduction on RAW files. I'm looking forward to seeing some high ISO (12,800 - 51,200) RAW files from both cameras side by side. I don't think we can make any assessment on the basis of SOOC JPEG images, although it's interesting to see them.

And some of the in-camera settings may make a difference too. Was the K-1ii using factory defaults for everything? Was the K-1 reset to factory defaults? The ii may do better with different tweaks. Time will tell as people can experiment more.

[rawr]

I'd personally like to see some shots of boring old ISO 12233 test charts - at ISO greater than ISO 3200. And shot at low-light levels too, in RAW, not bright studio or ambient lighting.

ISO 3200 because DxOMark gives the K-1 a low-light score of ISO 3280 - ie the ISO up to which decent image quality is maintained, according to them. So that's where the K-1 II + chip should [hopefully] show some improvement over K-1. ISO's lower than 3200 on both will be identical, I expect.

[UncleVanya]

I'm surprised since the kp's jpgs are so much better at higher ISO than the k3ii - this led me to expect a greater difference than is seen here.

[Andrea K]

Are you sure that High-ISO NR settings are the same between cameras? uhm.... k-1 seems far superior...

[suraswami]

Can you post some in real low light?

[pihe]

Are you sure that High-ISO NR settings are the same between cameras? uhm.... k-1 seems far superior...

Yep. All the same settings.