[richmondthefish]

Pentax K-1 - Photo Review


Kind of odd that they list the K1 as a 9.1 in RAW and the D810 as 9.5 in RAW? Nikon D810 - Photo Review

[pathdoc]

They can rank it higher in RAW all they like - with numbers that close, it comes down to individual preference. And the Nikonian with a crop camera and only DX glass who's looking to trade up might well regard the K-1 as a better option depending on the shooting they want to do and the lenses they need to buy in order to do it. Not everybody needs the Pentax f/2.8 Trinity all at once, and the ability to grab a K-1, the 28-105 and a couple of good pieces of secondhand MF glass (if s/he's happy to roll with that) for the same price as NIkon full-frame body only might be tempting.

[Na Horuk]

The D810 has a slightly lower minimum ISO, right? I think that could be part of it. But it does seem a bit exaggerated of a difference. We'll see once more reviews come in.
It might be sad or unreasonable, but these review numbers are very important to some potential buyers.

[gorme]

It's weird but I can see 2 explanations from their Imatest chart :
> The Lo1 ISO from Nikon is sharper than the 100ISO from the K-1 (expected)
> The high ISO performance of the Nikon seems better than the one from the K-1. And for me this is very weird.

[FantasticMrFox]

Comparing the K-1 and D810 in the DPReview studio scene though the K-1 beats the D810 in terms of noise and dynamic range even at ISO 64.

[FantasticMrFox]

Also, the review is full of weird bits:

"As is our normal practice when reviewing Pentax DSLRs, we set the Custom Image mode to the Natural colour setting, rather than the default Bright setting, which tends boost saturation. This tends to produce test images with slightly reduced overall saturation, thereby providing a little more scope for subsequent editing."

Really? You edit JPEGs?

"It's a big ask to expect a 36-megapixel to meet resolution expectations in our Imatest tests and much depends upon the performance of the lens used for testing. Fortunately, the supplied Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens was up to the task and the results we obtained were quite impressive."

A Sigma 50 f/1.4 'Art' for Pentax? Supplier please! They repeat it in the conclusion:

"And, if you want a nice standard prime lens, we can recommend the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens we used for our review."

[PJ1]

I created an account so I could ask them where they got a K-1 with Sigma 50/1.4 Art. Everything is "Page not found" once I am logged in.

[clackers]

What would Australians know about photography?


They must have meant the older: Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[Tas]

And I quote: "Noise was quite noticeable in shots taken at ISO 25600 and ISO 512,000 and the latter were quite granular looking"

I should assume so. And I hope that typo makes it into print.

Still, it did outscore the D5, despite the fact the K-1 "doesn't compete with the flagship pro cameras from Canon and Nikon."

Trying not to read this in a biased manner, but it does seem to come across as a bit of a negative nancy review.

Meh, I don't care. My lenses are K mount and I can do more with this camera than any other I've used. And why should I care if someone, who clearly hasn't done the research on the Pentax lens system, provides such a review. I mean he "doesn't compete with the flagship pro camera..." reviewers from overseas.

[Dan Rentea]

This is the first review for the K-1 that make sense. And the reviewer it's not the only one who noted that the Pentaxians are a little "zealous anger" when comes to Pentax products.

For me it's better to know all the negative comments about a camera that I'm interested in, so I can go and test the camera and see if I can live with those "weak spots" mentioned by others in their reviews.

You Tube

You Tube

[infoomatic]

> The Lo1 ISO from Nikon is sharper than the 100ISO from the K-1 (expected)

why expected? I have seen tests and the Nikon 810 seems sharper, but why?

[gorme]

why expected? I have seen tests and the Nikon 810 seems sharper, but why?

Well it's a physical problem. The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) should be slightly better. Let's assume that all electronical noise are exactly the same in both cases, there is a noise named Shot noise which varies in 1/sqrt(Nb of photons) and so having more photons should improve slightly the results. At these ISO values this noise variation between both settings should be quite small but it should favor the ISO64 against ISO100.

[Kunzite]

the Pentaxians are a little "zealous anger" when comes to Pentax products.

Not long ago, you were one of us. Did you consider yourself an angry zealot?

[Dan Rentea]

Not long ago, you were one of us. Did you consider yourself an angry zealot?

I'm still Pentaxian. I have a Pentax backpack which is perfect for my Godox flashes. I'm not a big fan of those Pentaxian which arguing with other people on everything, just to demonstrate that Pentax is the best brand out there.

There are different photographers with different needs... What's the point in arguing with a landscape photographer about flashes and af tracking capablities? What's the point in arguing with someone about dynamic range, knowing that my Canon 6D is inferior to Pentax K-3 II, or to K-1?

Up until a few months ago, Ed (from Photouniverse) was a "trully" Pentaxian and he was arguing with anyone about how good Pentax K-3 II is. According to him, now Fuji is the best, and tomorow...who knows, maybe Olympus or whatever will be "the best". I very much dislike this kind of "true" Pentaxians.

And I have a few other examples of "angry zealot" Pentaxians on this forum, but to those people I don't bother to respond anymore.

[Kunzite]

IMHO we're no worse than other systems' users; and actually you can find much worse communities if you look around.
Scratch that. Given all those snide remarks we are assaulted with, we're the best and friendliest ever