[Rico]

I had ordered the K1 Mk2...and I cancelled it after reading the dpr review. Not moving to another system, just sitting on the fence watching all the scurry and dust blowing around.

Much has been said.

Now I am wondering is it too much to ask of someone out there who owns (or has access to) both cameras...Adam perhaps?... to go out with the same lens, on the same day and do some in the field shooting in various situations and some astro, to put this discussion to bed once and for all.

No doubt I have been influenced by pixel peeping reviews from a source that has never cut the brand any favours (the constant reference to the size of the Mk2 in the dpr review is a glaring example of silly criticism when other cameras are very similar in bulk...and in so doing the reviewer brings his motivations into question). But I am genuinely concerned with the concept of applying some/any form of filtering to RAW files...that worries me because I do not understand it, thus I pull back.

So, come on, how about a real time, PRACTICAL review...... please ??

Mallee Boy you can also see such comparisons in the Image Quality Section of the review. The Studio Scene comparison between the 4 cameras clearly show what the differences are between them without having to read anything. You can judge for yourself.

I posted this in another thread but a good way to see how the color and noise are handled by each camera place the highlight anywhere over just the grey background of the Studio scene. Then switch to each ISO level. Judge for yourself which camera best maintains the grey background color most uniformly. Do the same thing with the color chart. It's pretty clear which camera is doing the best job. The actual results are the opposite of what the DPR review claims on that page.

[Mallee Boy]

Mallee Boy you can also see such comparisons in the Image Quality Section of the review. The Studio Scene comparison between the 4 cameras clearly show what the differences are between them without having to read anything. You can judge for yourself.

I posted this in another thread but a good way to see how the color and noise are handled by each camera place the highlight anywhere over just the grey background of the Studio scene. Then switch to each ISO level. Judge for yourself which camera best maintains the grey background color most uniformly. Do the same thing with the color chart. It's pretty clear which camera is doing the best job. The actual results are the opposite of what the DPR review claims on that page.

Thankyou...that is helpful, once I worked out how to use it. Comparing my K3 mk2, K1 & K1 Mk 2 I can only conclude that the K1 appears to suit my needs better.
PS:
Also went back and compared KP.
Still stick to my original conclusion, K1 looks the best to me eye....K1 Mk 2 images actually look out of focus.

[Rico]

Thankyou...that is helpful, once I worked out how to use it. Comparing my K3 mk2, K1 & K1 Mk 2 I can only conclude that the K1 appears to suit my needs better.
PS:
Also went back and compared KP.
Still stick to my original conclusion, K1 looks the best to me eye....K1 Mk 2 images actually look out of focus.

Mallee Boy I can not help you there if that is the way you want to see it. The K-1MKII images do not look out of focus at all to me. They look more natural and real. You can see how much better the noise is controlled by the K-1MKII with the simple test I suggested.

In particular look how much better the K-1MKII file handles the black area separating the color squares on the color chart through all the ISO levels. Right from ISO 200 the other cameras already introduce noise. By ISO 6400 they are a mess with noise. I don't know how that translates into more detail and sharper images.

[BigMackCam]

Still stick to my original conclusion, K1 looks the best to me eye....K1 Mk 2 images actually look out of focus.

In another discussion thread, we've pretty much concluded that the centre of the K-1II test images are sharp, while the outer areas - especially the top right - aren't, hence we can conclude there is a lens or camera-to-chart-alignment issue. Those same tests show the K-1 to be sharper than the new Sony A7R MkIII (which, good as the K-1 certainly is, just can't be the case). My point here is, don't place too much faith in DPR's studio comparison tool where sharpness and detail is concerned. For noise performance, though, it's useful.

[Mallee Boy]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this conversation, your opinions have all been considered and I thankyou for your good natured responses....a lot more is gained from civil dialogue.

As a result of your input I have spent many hours scrutinising images from K1 & Mk2 and have concluded....to buy the Mk 2 afterall.
Cheers.

[noelpolar]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this conversation, your opinions have all been considered and I thankyou for your good natured responses....a lot more is gained from civil dialogue.

As a result of your input I have spent many hours scrutinising images from K1 & Mk2 and have concluded....to buy the Mk 2 afterall.
Cheers.

Good choice.... I would.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this conversation, your opinions have all been considered and I thankyou for your good natured responses....a lot more is gained from civil dialogue.

As a result of your input I have spent many hours scrutinising images from K1 & Mk2 and have concluded....to buy the Mk 2 afterall.
Cheers.

I think you'll love it. There are definitely positive things in its favour, also (as with any camera) some very minor negatives. But overall, I suspect it'll blow your socks off

[monochrome]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this conversation, your opinions have all been considered and I thankyou for your good natured responses....a lot more is gained from civil dialogue.

As a result of your input I have spent many hours scrutinising images from K1 & Mk2 and have concluded....to buy the Mk 2 afterall.
Cheers.

I hope this specific post is rewarded with eleventy seven Likes. Congrats!

FWIW, as soon as I know how to do it I’m sending my K-1 in for the heart transplant (I had my doubts as well).

[zapp]

In another discussion thread, we've pretty much concluded that the centre of the K-1II test images are sharp, while the outer areas - especially the top right - aren't, hence we can conclude there is a lens or camera-to-chart-alignment issue. Those same tests show the K-1 to be sharper than the new Sony A7R MkIII (which, good as the K-1 certainly is, just can't be the case). My point here is, don't place too much faith in DPR's studio comparison tool where sharpness and detail is concerned. For noise performance, though, it's useful.

Did anyone complain about sharpness? Some people here just wanted to find errors in DPR workflow.
We all look at noise, AF-speed/performance, handheld pixel shift. These three aspects differentiate K1 from MK II.
Pentax forum noise performance tests show a similar story, although the second scene is not completely helpful.
The MK II has to improve on something and not worsen anything else to be an update. It is as simple as that. DPR sees improvements in AF performance, no improvement in noise performacne aroudn 3200/6400 - maybe it got even worse. Handeld PS is a gimmick, something to try. I also expect more from Pentax information for my money.

In positive terms. K1 sensor is already great. AF is what it is and we can live with it. Any improvements are welcome.

[BigMackCam]

Did anyone complain about sharpness? Some people here just wanted to find errors in DPR workflow.

I noticed a problem with sharpness away from the frame centre (I didn't complain about it - I merely noticed it). I subsequently read other comments in another thread here stating that the K-1II test images weren't sharp in the upper right corner, which - coincidentally (or perhaps not) - is where I'd noticed a problem too.

For the sake of clarity, I have no axe to grind with the good folks at DPR. Unlike many here, I've never been a member, and I don't read the forums (except for occasional posts as a result of general web searches). Frankly, I've got my hands full here But I have used their image quality comparison tool an awful lot (for which I thank them)... enough to know that the lens plays a part in the results. It's a pity they didn't use the same lens for the K-1 and K-1II shots, as that opens them up for criticism, whether-or-not it's deserved. In this case, I believe the lens is playing a big part, since the centre portion of the K-1II frame is sharp as a razor, whereas in the top right, even the parts that should be sharp aren't. Which suggests to me a lens issue, or a camera-to-test-subject alignment issue. That's just my opinion, though, and not a criticism of DPR... though I do question the validity of the shots.

We all look at noise, AF-speed/performance, handheld pixel shift. These three aspects differentiate K1 from MK II.
Pentax forum noise performance tests show a similar story, although the second scene is not completely helpful.
The MK II has to improve on something and not worsen anything else to be an update. It is as simple as that. DPR sees improvements in AF performance, no improvement in noise performacne aroudn 3200/6400 - maybe it got even worse. Handeld PS is a gimmick, something to try. I also expect more from Pentax information for my money.

Respectfully, I don't agree. And if DPR says they see no improvement in noise performance around the ISO 3200/6400 level, they're either not looking at their own test shots very closely, or their take on what constitutes an improvement isn't the same as mine. See below... Am I the only one to see a significant difference in the K-1II shot as far as noise is concerned? I call it a "difference"... to me, it's an improvement, but I don't want to presume everyone will feel the same.

[BigMackCam]

Did anyone complain about sharpness? Some people here just wanted to find errors in DPR workflow.

I noticed a problem with sharpness away from the frame centre (I didn't complain about it - I merely noticed it). I subsequently read other comments in another thread here stating that the K-1II test images weren't sharp in the upper right corner, which - coincidentally (or perhaps not) - is where I'd noticed a problem too.

And just to demonstrate conclusively that my observation (and that of others) isn't wishful thinking or an unfair criticism of DPR's tests, here's their (quietly updated ) comparison between the K-1 and K-1II... First image shows the comparison of the bottom right corner of the test image, where everything looks good on both images. Second image shows the top right corner, where the K-1II image clearly shows a lens issue; and not a minor one either... it's dreadful. We know this can't be the K-1II's processing at fault, because it handled the bottom right corner perfectly.

Sadly, the upper right corner is where that green feathery area resides, that some are using to conclude a loss of detail on the K-1II's files.

So, as I've said before, these test shots are useful for assessing the noise characteristics, but not detail. If the same lens had been used, and the cameras were both perfectly aligned with the test subject, the images would be more meaningful

[monochrome]

Quiet editing is another example of their underlying dishonesty and lack of integrity.

[MJKoski]

Am I the only one to see a significant difference in the K-1II shot as far as noise is concerned?

Well it is different. Mangled and melted. Put the K-1 (mk1 or 2) in freezer and see instant improvement.

[Mallee Boy]

For those interested....what drove my final decision was not the test studio shots of DPR, I have done enough studio work & art reproduction to understand the variations and anomalies that can happen to give that too much credibility, its one factor at best and prone to simple errors. What decided me was actual photos of actual situations where I could see the potential. Look at enough of those (yes...I have square eyes !!!) and you start to see patterns (no pun intended) emerge, see the potential if you like. Afterall, in todays photography the initial image is only about 1/3 rd of the final printed image....get the post processing wrong and you go nowhere, or mess it up at the print stage and you also have nothing. Sure it is great to start with a good image....but many great prints have not started out as great captures....capturing the detail is crucial and I subscribe to what someone else said (think it was Norm) in that I purposely underexpose everything I shoot in order to preserve that detail. I look forward to the arrival of the Mk 2 (K1:2).

[BigMackCam]

Well it is different. Mangled and melted. Put the K-1 (mk1 or 2) in freezer and see instant improvement.

As I've said before, it's subjective. You see "mangled and melted". I see better noise control - though I'll admit there's a small cost on detail in certain situations. For me, the K-1II would work well, though I'd prefer that the noise reduction was selectable.



Sadly, I don't carry a freezer with me when I'm out shooting... But it's an interesting idea