[normhead]

Right !?

Always funny when someone who has no comparison shots compalains about what some one who tried has done.
I seriously don't agree with the sentiment. A small movement in the camera makes a difference, but your incredibly easy to influence memory is spot on.

There's nothin more unreliable than a shooter going through new camera euphoria.

[BigMackCam]

Mike,
I downloaded and processed through ACR but applied the same temp etc. to both. But before I started to nitpick the pixels, I put both into a common file to see how they align. They don't align no matter what I do. I think the camera was in a different location and that the auto-focus was then different.

A global compare is necessary before pixel peeping. We all assume that the cameras are at fixed distances from the target but seldom check.

I wouldn't make any comments on rating the two cameras from this data.

RONC

Thanks, Ron.

I guess we'll have to wait until a member of these forums who owns both a K-1 and K-1II is willing to set up controlled, consistent tests on our behalf.

Until then - in fact, regardless of that - I hope both K-1 and K-1II owners continue to enjoy their cameras, both of which are clearly capable of outstanding image quality in real-world shooting (rather than test scene comparisons and pixel-peeping).

Personally, I still believe that the accelerator's mandatory noise reduction is having both positive and negative impact on the K-1II's RAW images (I look forward to being proven wrong on the negatives, however). Either way, Ricoh's best move would be to make the feature selectable in future models, whatever that may entail in terms of design...

[Rico]

Mike,
I downloaded and processed through ACR but applied the same temp etc. to both. But before I started to nitpick the pixels, I put both into a common file to see how they align. They don't align no matter what I do. I think the camera was in a different location and that the auto-focus was then different.

A global compare is necessary before pixel peeping. We all assume that the cameras are at fixed distances from the target but seldom check.

I wouldn't make any comments on rating the two cameras from this data.

RONC

It is clear looking at the IR images in full view the K-1 and K-1MKII are not centered. You can see from the white targets in the foreground how far off they are. The perspective to the K-1MKII is slightly closer and to the left of the K-1. This does make a difference. Especially in such a test scene due to the proximity. This will change the way "details" appear like in the cloth swatches with the different angle of views the light sources are casting different highlights and shadows which alters the way the "details" appear between cameras. The PF test images suffer the same fault.

---------- Post added 06-28-18 at 09:54 PM ----------

Post your comparison images then that explain what you're talking about. A proof is empirical evidence, in this case photographs. I've looked at the IR images and in some cases I preferred the K-1 images, in some cases I preferred the K-1 mkII images. So, no your theory of how my image could be different is completely untestable. it's your opinion, nothing more. You will never have been there with a mkII when I took that shot.

IN the world of science, what you've presented is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence suggests things that need further investigation. It doesn't provide proofs.

normhead I posted this already as real world proof:



Hand held. 1/5000s ƒ11 ISO 8000. JPG created from DNG using ACR 5.8 from PSCS4. No additional processing

normhead there is no question whether your image would look different it's a fact. It is only untestable for yourself.

[rechmbrs]

I have placed in my Dropbox a zip file: Dropbox - IR-k1_k1II.zip About 1 mb in size. Which if you download and unzip you will find a HTML file and two jpg files. Click on the HTML which should load to your browser. When you view the display, K1 to left and K1II to the right. I aligned the two on the black label words of the Mas Portell bottle. Both files were processed through ACR with common parameters. The images were down samples by factor of 4 for this display as looking globally.

Added another zip file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/whf9jd3poo03snw/IR-K1_K1II%20full%20sized.zip?dl=0 This is full sized - no down sampling. About 8 mb in size.

Added comment: I don't think it is camera placing but that the scene was rebuilt. So change in scene says anything could have happened to make image differences.

RONC

---------- Post added 06-28-18 at 22:07 ----------

Always funny when someone who has no comparison shots compalains about what some one who tried has done.
I seriously don't agree with the sentiment. A small movement in the camera makes a difference, but your incredibly easy to influence memory is spot on.

There's nothin more unreliable than a shooter going through new camera euphoria.

In looking harder, I find that the scene has been rebuilt which means we can't be sure of camera location. Have a look at files I referred to in my response earlier.

RONC

---

Last edited by rechmbrs; 06-28-2018 at 08:00 PM. Reason: Added another file and comments.

[drache]

normhead I posted this already as real world proof:



Hand held. 1/5000s ƒ11 ISO 8000. JPG created from DNG using ACR 5.8 from PSCS4. No additional processing

normhead there is no question whether your image would look different it's a fact. It is only untestable for yourself.

Rico, that is not how science works. You need to use the scientific method, have reproducible results by yourself and peers.

[reh321]

IHand held. 1/5000s ƒ11 ISO 8000. JPG created from DNG using ACR 5.8 from PSCS4. No additional processing

What tools did you use in PP?

How did these images compare to SOOC JPEGs?

[C_Jones]

It is clear looking at the IR images in full view the K-1 and K-1MKII are not centered. You can see from the white targets in the foreground how far off they are. The perspective to the K-1MKII is slightly closer and to the left of the K-1. This does make a difference. Especially in such a test scene due to the proximity. This will change the way "details" appear like in the cloth swatches with the different angle of views the light sources are casting different highlights and shadows which alters the way the "details" appear between cameras. The PF test images suffer the same fault.

I noticed the difference in positioning also. Good point.

[bdery]

I believe there is a reason Japanese consumers are purchasing the Mk ii.

Based on my ongoing tests, the AF-S is faster, the AF-C appears more "nervous" (can't comment yet on whether it's more accurate but I think so) and JPEG noise seems to be better controlled (that's not a conclusion, but a first feeling if you will). RAW details at high ISO are probably a bit worse, as others have reported.

This makes for many improvements.

A global compare is necessary before pixel peeping. We all assume that the cameras are at fixed distances from the target but seldom check.

When I finish the comparison for Pentaxforums, you can rest assured that the cameras will be in the exact same location, with the same lens, and manual focus using live view will be used!

[normhead]

Based on my ongoing tests, the AF-S is faster, the AF-C appears more "nervous" (can't comment yet on whether it's more accurate but I think so) and JPEG noise seems to be better controlled (that's not a conclusion, but a first feeling if you will). RAW details at high ISO are probably a bit worse, as others have reported.

This makes for many improvements.



When I finish the comparison for Pentaxforums, you can rest assured that the cameras will be in the exact same location, with the same lens, and manual focus using live view will be used!

You can never have too much evidence.

[bdery]

You can never have too much evidence.

I tend to agree. Which is why I'm always careful with phrasing when doing reviews.

[normhead]

I tend to agree. Which is why I'm always careful with phrasing when doing reviews.

Luckily for you, in my experience, the guy who does the test is ends up with a functional understanding of the process that just can' be put into words. t's work, but there are all those little impressions that can't be explained.

MY favourite example was the testa 35mm that included the Super-tac 35 3.5. It won the poll in terms of best image, but It took 20 images to nail focus as opposed to 5 for the others. And some lenses went 5 for 5 n terms of acceptable focus. People can read some thing like that without really understanding exactly how annoying that was. SO according to the poll it was the best lens, but I've never put it on the camera since the poll. The best isn't even always the one you want to use. That was on the k-3, I should give it a chance on the K-1.

[bdery]

Luckily for you, in my experience, the guy who does the test is ends up with a functional understanding of the process that just can' be put into words. t's work, but there are all those little impressions that can't be explained.

The most important part of the reviews are, in my opinion, the samples and conclusion. A portrait lens can have poor sharpness in the corners and it won't matter. In the test results pages I try to give objective information, in the conclusion I comment on use and all those things that are hard to measure but do make a difference.

[Rico]

Rico, that is not how science works. You need to use the scientific method, have reproducible results by yourself and peers.

drache let me get this straight. People are using "review" site images to make conclusions on image "quality" from places like DPR and IR that have taken their test images in unscientific manner but my real world example isn't good enough. My image is reproducible. I can take dozens and dozens of similar images.

normhead posted the image of the Hummingbird to show what was acceptable for himself. To his own admission he blurred the background to "denoise" it. The "noise" on the Hummingbird was okay. The purpose of the Accelerator Unit is to better handle the "noise".

I posted a real world example deemed unacceptable showing how the Accelerator Unit eliminates the noise and improves the color so less post processing is needed to demonstrate how the Hummingbird image would be better handled by the Accelerator Unit i.e. no need to blur the background and the "noise" and color on the bird itself will be improved. It's not speculation it would happen it is fact. The function of the Accelerator Unit is to improve color and remove the noise. And it does an excellent job doing it. My example image is testament to that.

What we should be asking Ricoh is to allow us to reprocess PEF or DNG files taken with the K-1 through a K-1MKII to apply the Accelerator Unit. I have thousands of files that would benefit.

---------- Post added 06-29-18 at 10:51 AM ----------

What tools did you use in PP?

How did these images compare to SOOC JPEGs?

Like it says I only adjusted the file in ACR 5.8 from PSCS4. Even there I did less to the file than I normally need too.

[BigMackCam]

I posted a real world example deemed unacceptable showing how the Accelerator Unit eliminates the noise and improves the color so less post processing is needed to demonstrate how the Hummingbird image would be better handled by the Accelerator Unit i.e. no need to blur the background and the "noise" and color on the bird itself will be improved. It's not speculation it would happen it is fact. The function of the Accelerator Unit is to improve color and remove the noise. And it does an excellent job doing it. My example image is testament to that.

Your example image is excellent, but what it doesn't give us is the same RAW shot taken with both cameras in using the same lens and shooting parameters, both without and with processing applied to the best of the user's ability - and copies of the unprocessed RAW files for us to play with. It's a big ask, I know, but that's what's required. Otherwise, what your image does is tell us that the K-1II is capable of taking really nice images - and we all know that anyway.

I asked previously if you could process the Imaging Resource K-1 and K-1II files I referenced and process the K-1II file to the point where it provided equivalent detail in the bright red material swatch. In earlier posts, I showed how, even with colour noise reduction applied, my attempts at processing demonstrated slightly more detail in the K-1 file. I'm genuinely interested to see if the same level of detail can be brought out in the K-1II file in that specific area of the image, since it's the reds where it seems to struggle based on my own efforts with those files. If it can, fantastic. If it can't it doesn't mean the K-1II is a lesser camera, but only that we accept there is some cost as well as benefit to the accelerator's noise reduction.

[bdery]

What we should be asking Ricoh is to allow us to reprocess PEF or DNG files taken with the K-1 through a K-1MKII to apply the Accelerator Unit. I have thousands of files that would benefit.

If it's done before the analog to digital conversion, as Ricoh implies, then you can't reprocess your images, sadly.