Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

normhead · 06-23-2018, 11:30 AM

Just looking at some test images from imaging resources. For Micro contrast and resolution the K-1 appears to be better than the K-1 mkII both at 1600 ISO and 51200 ISO.

The differences are small but still quite distinct. They haven't put up the lw/ph measurements yet, but I'm guessing there will actually be some drop-off when they do. The K-1 is rated at 3450 lw/ph, my guess is the K-1II won't do better than 3350.

Sad news.

stevebrot · 06-23-2018, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by normhead

K-1 mkII , a step back?
Just looking at some test images from imaging resources.

I have been waiting for their review to flesh out and was anticipating something similar to this. Their methodology is very straightforward and allows for very valid comparisons. Noise is lower, though with artifact similar to that caused by smoothing in PP.

Question...what image pairs are these (file names)?

Steve

victormeldrew · 06-23-2018, 11:50 AM - **2 Likes**

Maybe rather than just a step back, it is a small sacrifice for a major step forward in another area. A realignment of the comprimises that exist in every system...

Zygonyx · 06-23-2018, 11:53 AM

Norm, are these from the jpeg or raw files ?

**darylk** · 06-23-2018, 11:59 AM - **1 Like**

TBH, I couldn't care less if the IQ difference is so small that pixel peepers have to strain their eyes at 100% magnification to detect any debatable difference, which seems to be the case.

My main interest is in any improvement in continuous autofocus speed and accuracy. User reports on this front sound positive. Hopefully IR will give that a look and report on what they find.

My 2 cents for what it's worth...

Daryl

**interested_observer** · 06-23-2018, 12:05 PM

When the MkII was first announced, especially with the upgrade option - I thought, sure a no brainier.

Since then, reading and looking while following all of the threads and reviews, with each item peeling back various aspects of the upgrade, I have become even more interested in keeping just exactly what I have. All I'm interested in is going out and shooting - interesting stuff.

I'm rethinking my approach to shooting, and adapting my approach (with very minor changes) to the K1's strengths, while re-thinking my post processing work flow to the K1's raw images and what I want to bring out. My interests in gear has been in steady decline in the past few years. Over the last 15 years, I have slowly acquired all the tools I need for ambient low light shooting. And with shooting the K1 and carefully thinking about the results, I'm making some subtle changes. Bottom line, is that the K1 is everything I could want and offers (more than) everything that I need. There are a few (minor) changes I would welcome, however the basic body offers all the functionalities, I need to workaround all of my minor concerns. Also, in a few areas the functionality / usability has been greatly enhanced (astrotracker), over the K5/O-GPS1 that I was using, so my shooting is even easier and faster. There are some slight trade-offs I'm making (using LENR), but for me they are pretty minor.

All in all, the K1 has been a winner (for me), and with each one of these comparisons I have gone from being very happy and become extremely happy. There is no perfect camera. There is and always will be compromises in doing photography. There will always be compromises with any camera body and system.

So, I'm just going to count me happy and go out and shoot. Well, perhaps not during the day right now - it's 111 out, perhaps this evening when it cools off to a ~85.

normhead · 06-23-2018, 12:37 PM

Jpegs from both cameras, the k1 images are clearer and better micro contrast..... look at the threads in the Orange cloth swatch. Compared was the still life at 1600 ISO and 51,200 ISO. Even at 100 the K-1 appears to have better micro contrast.

I'd encourage anyone to compare images at the ISO they are most interested in. I didn't post them but I like the 100 ISO K-1 image better as well.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

It's interesting when I compare the K-p and K-3II the K-P is clearly better The accelerator chip doesn't seem to produce the same results across both cameras systems.

Just as a comparison, this is way more difference than I see between my Tamron 90 macro and my DA*60-250, where we get the same detail in both but slightly more micro contrast in the Tamron 90. My guess is, if you're a prime only guy, you might do better with a zoom on a K-1 than a prime on a K-1 mkII.

The thing with these images, they were taken on the same set with the same light with the exact same lens. There's not a lot of wiggle room looking the results to say something was unfair.

Last edited by normhead; 06-23-2018 at 12:47 PM.

**BigMackCam** · 06-23-2018, 12:55 PM

Norm, are you able to locate the ISO 1600 RAW files for each camera (I can find the K-1II file, but not the equivalent K-1 file)? I'm very keen to download both the K-1 and K-1II files and play around in Darktable. My previous attempts at this using DPR's test scene brought out far more detail than the JPEGs showed and resulted in more-or-less comparable results - with the K-1 having a tiny edge on detail, and the K-1II having a tangible edge on noise...

normhead · 06-23-2018, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Norm, are you able to locate the ISO 1600 RAW files for each camera (I can find the K-1II file, but not the equivalent K-1 file)? I'm very keen to download both the K-1 and K-1II files and play around in Darktable. My previous attempts at this using DPR's test scene brought out far more detail than the JPEGs showed and resulted in more-or-less comparable results - with the K-1 having a tiny edge on detail, and the K-1II having a tangible edge on noise...

They must still be shooting, Plastic model has jpg and DNG files, but the still life I used doesn't have K-1 II DNG yet. They must still be shooting. OH wait, not they do.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1-ii/pentax-k1-iiA7.HTM

08amczb · 06-23-2018, 01:04 PM

When I first heard about the accelerator chip I tought it's an AI teached with high ISO and base ISO images and it's does something like this: Researchers use AI to brighten ultra-low light images without adding noise: Digital Photography Review, but sadly it's a simple classic noise reduction algorithm. This accelerator just forces you to a minimum amount of noise reduction, so yes it's a step back.

**BigMackCam** · 06-23-2018, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by normhead

They must still be shooting, Plastic model has jpg and DNG files, but the still life I used doesn't have K-1 II DNG yet. They must still be shooting. OH wait, not they do.

Pentax K-1 II Review - Samples

Yeah, that's where I got the K-1II RAW files from, but the K-1 page only shows JPEGs for that test image

**c.a.m** · 06-23-2018, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

are you able to locate the ISO 1600 RAW files for each camera (I can find the K-1II file, but not the equivalent K-1 file)

K-1 DNG files appear here:

Pentax K-1 Review - Thumbnails

stevebrot · 06-23-2018, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by normhead

They must still be shooting, Plastic model has jpg and DNG files, but the still life I used doesn't have K-1 II DNG yet. They must still be shooting. OH wait, not they do.

Pentax K-1 II Review - Samples

Yes, and the picture is different when comparing the non-NR shots. I am going to grab the DNG and see how it looks with my processing.

Steve

**BigMackCam** · 06-23-2018, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by c.a.m

K-1 DNG files appear here:

Pentax K-1 Review - Thumbnails

Perfect, thank you

Downloading now... I may be some time, but once I've played around with them in Darktable, I'll come back to discuss

**BigMackCam** · 06-23-2018, 02:04 PM

So I've been playing with the ISO 1600 RAW files briefly...

I don't want to post any results just yet, as I'd like to do more work on them, but I think @normhead is correct. While the K-1II's RAW files look way better than the JPEGs, there's less clarity / micro-contrast compared to the K-1, and the files need sharpening to bring out the same detail, although most of that detail is still there. However, on the bright red material swatch (second one above the "Fiddler's Elbow" beer bottle), and ONLY there, there's some detail loss that I can't seem to recover at present. At 50% reproduction, it's not noticeable, but at larger reproductions, the difference is obvious.

I'll try to spend some more time with the files over the next day or two, and post results...

06-23-2018, 11:30 AM	#1
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	K-1 mkII , a step back? Just looking at some test images from imaging resources. For Micro contrast and resolution the K-1 appears to be better than the K-1 mkII both at 1600 ISO and 51200 ISO. The differences are small but still quite distinct. They haven't put up the lw/ph measurements yet, but I'm guessing there will actually be some drop-off when they do. The K-1 is rated at 3450 lw/ph, my guess is the K-1II won't do better than 3350. Sad news.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Good, inexpensive CPL filter and step-up / step-down rings	BigMackCam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	10-31-2019 05:46 AM
Q vs Q10 - one step sideways and one step backwards?	Unsinkable II	Pentax Q	25	09-29-2012 11:02 PM
step down ring or step up ring ?	dh4412	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	04-14-2012 04:39 AM
Easy step-by-step test for front/back focusing?	Javaslinger	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	01-11-2011 12:51 PM
General rule for step-up step-down rings?	uchinakuri	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	06-18-2010 09:54 PM

06-23-2018, 11:39 AM	#2
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by normhead K-1 mkII , a step back? Just looking at some test images from imaging resources. I have been waiting for their review to flesh out and was anticipating something similar to this. Their methodology is very straightforward and allows for very valid comparisons. Noise is lower, though with artifact similar to that caused by smoothing in PP. Question...what image pairs are these (file names)? Steve

06-23-2018, 11:50 AM - 2 Likes	#3
victormeldrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: South West UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,493	Maybe rather than just a step back, it is a small sacrifice for a major step forward in another area. A realignment of the comprimises that exist in every system...

06-23-2018, 11:53 AM	#4
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Norm, are these from the jpeg or raw files ?

06-23-2018, 11:59 AM - 1 Like	#5
darylk Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Blue Hill, Nebraska Photos: Gallery Posts: 494	TBH, I couldn't care less if the IQ difference is so small that pixel peepers have to strain their eyes at 100% magnification to detect any debatable difference, which seems to be the case. My main interest is in any improvement in continuous autofocus speed and accuracy. User reports on this front sound positive. Hopefully IR will give that a look and report on what they find. My 2 cents for what it's worth... Daryl

06-23-2018, 12:05 PM	#6
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	When the MkII was first announced, especially with the upgrade option - I thought, sure a no brainier. Since then, reading and looking while following all of the threads and reviews, with each item peeling back various aspects of the upgrade, I have become even more interested in keeping just exactly what I have. All I'm interested in is going out and shooting - interesting stuff. I'm rethinking my approach to shooting, and adapting my approach (with very minor changes) to the K1's strengths, while re-thinking my post processing work flow to the K1's raw images and what I want to bring out. My interests in gear has been in steady decline in the past few years. Over the last 15 years, I have slowly acquired all the tools I need for ambient low light shooting. And with shooting the K1 and carefully thinking about the results, I'm making some subtle changes. Bottom line, is that the K1 is everything I could want and offers (more than) everything that I need. There are a few (minor) changes I would welcome, however the basic body offers all the functionalities, I need to workaround all of my minor concerns. Also, in a few areas the functionality / usability has been greatly enhanced (astrotracker), over the K5/O-GPS1 that I was using, so my shooting is even easier and faster. There are some slight trade-offs I'm making (using LENR), but for me they are pretty minor. All in all, the K1 has been a winner (for me), and with each one of these comparisons I have gone from being very happy and become extremely happy. There is no perfect camera. There is and always will be compromises in doing photography. There will always be compromises with any camera body and system. So, I'm just going to count me happy and go out and shoot. Well, perhaps not during the day right now - it's 111 out, perhaps this evening when it cools off to a ~85.

06-23-2018, 12:37 PM	#7
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Jpegs from both cameras, the k1 images are clearer and better micro contrast..... look at the threads in the Orange cloth swatch. Compared was the still life at 1600 ISO and 51,200 ISO. Even at 100 the K-1 appears to have better micro contrast. I'd encourage anyone to compare images at the ISO they are most interested in. I didn't post them but I like the 100 ISO K-1 image better as well. https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM It's interesting when I compare the K-p and K-3II the K-P is clearly better The accelerator chip doesn't seem to produce the same results across both cameras systems. Just as a comparison, this is way more difference than I see between my Tamron 90 macro and my DA60-250, where we get the same detail in both but slightly more micro contrast in the Tamron 90. My guess is, if you're a prime only guy, you might do better with a zoom on a K-1 than a prime on a K-1 mkII. The thing with these images, they were taken on the same set with the same light with the exact same lens. There's not a lot of wiggle room looking the results to say something was unfair. Last edited by normhead; 06-23-2018 at 12:47 PM.*

06-23-2018, 12:55 PM	#8
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,704	Norm, are you able to locate the ISO 1600 RAW files for each camera (I can find the K-1II file, but not the equivalent K-1 file)? I'm very keen to download both the K-1 and K-1II files and play around in Darktable. My previous attempts at this using DPR's test scene brought out far more detail than the JPEGs showed and resulted in more-or-less comparable results - with the K-1 having a tiny edge on detail, and the K-1II having a tangible edge on noise...

06-23-2018, 01:01 PM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by BigMackCam Norm, are you able to locate the ISO 1600 RAW files for each camera (I can find the K-1II file, but not the equivalent K-1 file)? I'm very keen to download both the K-1 and K-1II files and play around in Darktable. My previous attempts at this using DPR's test scene brought out far more detail than the JPEGs showed and resulted in more-or-less comparable results - with the K-1 having a tiny edge on detail, and the K-1II having a tangible edge on noise... They must still be shooting, Plastic model has jpg and DNG files, but the still life I used doesn't have K-1 II DNG yet. They must still be shooting. OH wait, not they do. https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1-ii/pentax-k1-iiA7.HTM

06-23-2018, 01:04 PM	#10
08amczb Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 796	When I first heard about the accelerator chip I tought it's an AI teached with high ISO and base ISO images and it's does something like this: Researchers use AI to brighten ultra-low light images without adding noise: Digital Photography Review, but sadly it's a simple classic noise reduction algorithm. This accelerator just forces you to a minimum amount of noise reduction, so yes it's a step back.

06-23-2018, 01:06 PM	#11
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,704	Originally posted by normhead They must still be shooting, Plastic model has jpg and DNG files, but the still life I used doesn't have K-1 II DNG yet. They must still be shooting. OH wait, not they do. Pentax K-1 II Review - Samples Yeah, that's where I got the K-1II RAW files from, but the K-1 page only shows JPEGs for that test image

06-23-2018, 01:09 PM	#12
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,194	Originally posted by BigMackCam are you able to locate the ISO 1600 RAW files for each camera (I can find the K-1II file, but not the equivalent K-1 file) K-1 DNG files appear here: Pentax K-1 Review - Thumbnails

06-23-2018, 01:10 PM	#13
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by normhead They must still be shooting, Plastic model has jpg and DNG files, but the still life I used doesn't have K-1 II DNG yet. They must still be shooting. OH wait, not they do. Pentax K-1 II Review - Samples Yes, and the picture is different when comparing the non-NR shots. I am going to grab the DNG and see how it looks with my processing. Steve

06-23-2018, 01:12 PM	#14
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,704	Originally posted by c.a.m K-1 DNG files appear here: Pentax K-1 Review - Thumbnails Perfect, thank you Downloading now... I may be some time, but once I've played around with them in Darktable, I'll come back to discuss

06-23-2018, 02:04 PM	#15
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,704	So I've been playing with the ISO 1600 RAW files briefly... I don't want to post any results just yet, as I'd like to do more work on them, but I think @normhead is correct. While the K-1II's RAW files look way better than the JPEGs, there's less clarity / micro-contrast compared to the K-1, and the files need sharpening to bring out the same detail, although most of that detail is still there. However, on the bright red material swatch (second one above the "Fiddler's Elbow" beer bottle), and ONLY there, there's some detail loss that I can't seem to recover at present. At 50% reproduction, it's not noticeable, but at larger reproductions, the difference is obvious. I'll try to spend some more time with the files over the next day or two, and post results...