[Rondec]

It is impressive how much they ignore the K-1 II's good qualities and harp on the things they perceive as its negatives. The whole noise reduction thing/accelerator chip is just a non-issue to me. If they are going to dock Pentax for a barely perceptible smoothing visible at 200 percent, then they really should kill Sony. I just looked at the A7r III review and it mentions nothing at all about "star eating" or smoothing of raw files. Personally, I don't have an issue with it if it isn't going to be visible in the finished print (the star eater does seem to affect astro photography), but it is problematic that they aren't routinely looking for smoothing and docking all camera brands that do it.

It doesn't affect my interest in the K-1 II, although I am more likely to upgrade my current K-1, a stop improvement in high iso with such minimal cost is a win in my book.

Edit: I will mention that there have been a few who have posted K-1 II images in the post your photos thread for the K-1 and the level of detail seen there is impressive and I certainly don't see anything concerning. In particular, the bird images of vcollerp are excellent. Of course, he did great with a K-1 so that isn't surprising, but certainly there isn't a step back with the K-1 II.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 05-07-2018 at 03:53 PM.

[swanlefitte]

K1ii has a problem with nr but not the sony. K1ii has a problem with weight but not the nikon 850. K1ii has worthless dynamic pixel shift because it takes 20 seconds. Yet the same this is worth doing cause any camera can do it with lots of time and work. And for tripod pixelshift its no good because it won't work in situations its not designed for. Blah, blah, blah.

[DennisP]

K1ii has a problem with nr but not the sony. K1ii has a problem with weight but not the nikon 850. K1ii has worthless dynamic pixel shift because it takes 20 seconds. Yet the same this is worth doing cause any camera can do it with lots of time and work. And for tripod pixelshift its no good because it won't work in situations its not designed for. Blah, blah, blah.

DPR is a dangerous site because they are masquerading as an impartial, technically proficient resource. But they appear to be extremely biased in their subjective conclusions, constantly "moving the goalposts" as they see fit in each review, etc. They are a bad joke to real photographers at this point, but the majority of people still see them as the end-all be-all resource, which is extremely sad.

[jddwoods]

Did you look at the end and the "Compare mode" against the K-1? K-1 II got less points in almost every category! That's insane and can only be a subjective opinion, bot no standardized test result.

Wow, what a huge difference in the value category. I did not see where Ricoh raised the price significantly on the Mk II version. So, I am not sure what is their reason for this. As for me I will put more faith in the in depth review we will see on this website and also the positive feedback from everyone here who have either version of the K-1.

[awscreo]

Wow, what a huge difference in the value category. I did not see where Ricoh raised the price significantly on the Mk II version. So, I am not sure what is their reason for this. As for me I will put more faith in the in depth review we will see on this website and also the positive feedback from everyone here who have either version of the K-1.

To play devils advocate - wouldn't they consider K1 2 value lower because K-1 is out there for cheaper, and they consider it doing most of things that the update can do, hence that being a better value?

[monochrome]

To play devils advocate - wouldn't they consider K1 2 value lower because K-1 is out there for cheaper, and they consider it doing most of things that the update can do, hence that being a better value?

Isn’t that also true of the D850 / D810 - and every other ‘line extension’ camera version?

[caliscouser]

Wow, what a huge difference in the value category. I did not see where Ricoh raised the price significantly on the Mk II version. So, I am not sure what is their reason for this. As for me I will put more faith in the in depth review we will see on this website and also the positive feedback from everyone here who have either version of the K-1

There's more competition around the $2000 price point now than there was 2 years ago when the K-1 came out.
The score is done in the context of the competitive environment at the time. Not sure why some people are having a hard time grasping this.

Maybe read this: Camera Scores & Ratings Explained: Digital Photography Review

Quote:
"All scores are relative to the other cameras in the same category"
"A camera's score represents 'a moment in time' - the date the review is published"

I have no agenda here. Just trying to be objective. It seems entirely reasonable for the score to go down for a successor camera if it hasn't advanced as far the competition in two years.

[rawr]

Interesting that DPR say they asked RAW image experts Iliah Berg and Bill Claff to analyse the K-1 II's RAW files for evidence of NR. It would be good to see their work on this.

Tada!

Mandatory Noise Reduction (NR) in Various Pentax Cameras: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

It must be said that the analysis by bclaff looks very bad news for the K-1 II. I trust that Ricoh were aware that this sort of work would be done by third party experts, and that the fallout could be dire.

[monochrome]

Tada!

Mandatory Noise Reduction (NR) in Various Pentax Cameras: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

It must be said that the analysis by bclaff looks very bad news for the K-1 II. I trust that Ricoh were aware that this sort of work would be done by third party experts, and that the fallout could be dire.

At standard print size is any of this noise reduction detectable?

[awscreo]

Isn’t that also true of the D850 / D810 - and every other ‘line extension’ camera version?

I'd argue that d810 to d850 saw a lot more improvements compared to K-1 to K-1 II

I'd say it is true to like d600 - d610

[swanlefitte]

Tada!

Mandatory Noise Reduction (NR) in Various Pentax Cameras: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

It also shows that the k1ii gains a stop of dr while hardly noticable loss of detail.

[rawr]

At standard print size is any of this noise reduction detectable?

Probably not. Unless it impacts some other qualities of the image - eg interferes with various colour channels.

I think the level of micro-analysis performed here by tech gurus like Bill Claff and Iliah is important and useful, but in the real-world, the results of any mandatory NR will not be something ordinary folks will ever see.

However in the world of camera journalism and marketing, it's the sort of thing that can certainly make a product look less attractive. Particularly for professionals, who like maximum control over their camera, or users with specialized requirements where mandatory NR may have an impact on their image output.

[monochrome]

Probably not. Unless it impacts some other qualities of the image - eg interferes with various colour channels.

I think the level of micro-analysis performed here by tech gurus like Bill Claff and Iliah is important and useful, but in the real-world, the results of any mandatory NR will not be something ordinary folks will ever see.

However in the world of camera journalism and marketing, it's the sort of thing that can certainly make a product look less attractive. Particularly for professionals, who like maximum control over their camera, or users with specialized requirements where mandatory NR may have an impact on their image output.

So the pros - who likely already know about this by being members of truly independent, paid Forums - probably haven’t purchased the K-1 in great numbers and probably won’t purchase the K-1ll. DPReview has no value to them.

But the regular consumers and enthusiasts - people like me - who don’t need and don’t care about this level of detail and wouldn’t know about it if not told about it, but who might actually benefit from the Pentax price / features / value relationship, the very people who need validation and who read DPR for what they think is independent information, will be discouraged from trying Pentax.

Nice job DPR.

[swanlefitte]

Something interesting from photonstophotos.net They have a bunch of graphs and they have their DR charts and those of DXO. They say they are usually more reliable than DXO, I wouldn't know. K1 changes from iso 100 from 11.43 to 11.3 or down 0.4 and at 1600 7.68 to 7.53 or down 0.15 DXO score lowers the Pentax. This is simialr with the d750 and d810, however on the d850 iso 100 goes from 11.08 to 11.38 or Up 0.3 and at 1600 from 7.85 to 7.92 or Up 0.08. Ok thats +/- 0.4 discrepancy. A stat should not read 11.11(+/-0.4 at least if not more) because that is 11.51 to 10.71 which means the stat only says "about 11" and nothing more. One or both are already deceiving right there.

[robbiec]

Anyone know what program mode do DPR use when testing a camera? Would it be P for Professional like Thom?
Something that shouts RTFM at me is their suggestion to use AF-C in low light scenarios because it will allow you to release the shutter earlier even though accuracy might not be the best. I stopped reading and started skimming then.