[BigMackCam]

Looking at comparisons between bodies that use the same 36MP sensor shows that the Accelerator seems to concentrate on removing chroma noise.

The chroma noise reduction is quite strong and effective, though not with a particularly wide radius for smoothing... but there's definitely luminance noise reduction too, plus mild sharpening with a small radius and quite a strong threshold to ensure edges are sharpened while remaining luminance noise is left unaffected.

As noise reduction goes, it's better than many post-processing software applications - though Lightroom and Darktable (and, I suspect, one or two other pro-level tools) are capable of more, but I'd expect that.

[normhead]

Normhead: It's not impossible for sure. You could do this even in Paint if you have enough free months to do this. Just who have time?

I don't care much about noise reduction in camera, if it is done right, but still I'd like to have choice to turn it off in those rare situations when pixel peeping details are so important.

With all due respect, I'm a believe it when I see it type of guy.

My guess is, there's no software that will match a Pentax K-1 mkII with a non-pentax camera. Why would Pentax put a whole chip in a camera that performed worse than any existing software?

Everyone is acting like Pentax is stupid.

[swanlefitte]

Well, I've been playing around with the ISO 6400 shots in Darktable, and in all honesty, the K-1 cleans up slightly better in post-processing than the K-1II straight out of camera.

What about if you also play around eith thek1ii file?
Also whats the time difference in this processing.
If i shot a wedding and had to process 200+ shots that would be an important thing to know.

[BigMackCam]

What about if you also play around eith thek1ii file?

The small amount of detail lost is unrecoverable; no amount of processing will bring it back... but I maintain that it's minor.

Also whats the time difference in this processing.
If i shot a wedding and had to process 200+ shots that would be an important thing to know.

It took me around three minutes to do one image, but that processing can be stored as a preset. Similar presets would be required for each ISO level. So, a certain amount of work is required up front to create presets to one's individual tastes, but after that, it's very quick and potentially automated to apply.

[swanlefitte]

So time was small. Can you make the k1ii look better in terms of nr than ooc? Basically when all pp is done is there a preference to one overall? My guess is the answer is meh.

[normhead]

The small amount of detail lost is unrecoverable; no amount of processing will bring it back... but I maintain that it's minor.

Are there going to be images posted? What I'd be looking at would be, same noise, same contrast and micro-contrast, same saturation and light values, better detail on the final image after PP on both images.

[mee]

With respect, I think that's an exaggeration... But then, it's highly subjective, and our perspectives are different. Way back when, you described one of my shots as being "mushy" when it had a level of post-processing noise reduction that I personally was very happy with. The same applies here... the noise reduction will please some, disappoint others, and the rest won't care.

That said, I've changed my mind on the basis of my post-processing tests, and would probably go with the K-1 also for IQ alone... though I'd be very happy with either camera, and of course the K-1II offers additional advantages.

It is absolutely no exaggeration. I know my opinion. I can spot the blotches instantly. I didn't have to A / B for even a minute to spot the the differences... its very obvious in the magenta material especially.



I think you just have a higher tolerance than I do.

What's interesting is, almost nobody complained about this with the KP, but if you compare DPR's high ISO shots for the K-3 / K-3II and the KP, the exact same difference in detail (I call it "a bit", you call it "totally mushy") can be observed.

In all the time the KP has been around, I can only think of one member who decided the KP wasn't for him because of this noise reduction, and - perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not - his discovery was made right after all the discussions about the K-1II's noise reduction kicked off.

Aside from all that, like you I hope that any future Pentax cameras allow for this NR to be switched on and off, or - better still - configurable.

I noticed in the KP shots too but it was at higher ISOs from what I recall... but it has been awhile. But I do remember noticed the smeared paint look back then in sample shots too. I don't think it should be 'hard coded' into the RAW shots if anything.. on JPG shots this would be more acceptable IMO.

That said I don't think it is a major issue since past ISO 800 you're already not primarily shooting for critical detail... those shots are generally sub 800 imo... usually 100 or 200 from my experiences.

What I'd really like to see are prints taken from each to see how it actually translates to real world product. I had major issue with ISO noise on K-1 until I had some of those shots printed... on the prints the noise wasn't as overwhelming to me than on the screen. But lack of detail (from blotchy, baked in NR) might..

That said, this is neither here nor there since I'm not interested in the K-1 series... I'm more interested in how this pertains to the K-3 III type body... Hopefully Ricoh mature this technology even more (perhaps with an on/off switch).

[lesmore49]

I don't read as many reviews, tests, etc. as I used to and that goes for cars, motorcycles,cameras...you name it. Still read the odd one, but mostly for me, it just comes down to...do I like the product I bought, does it do things to my satisfaction ? If it does and I'm happy...then that's good enough for me.

Back in 2007, one of the prime reasons I chose a Pentax K10D with the optional battery grip, as my first DSLR was that it fit my hands well. I could get a better grip on the Pentax body mit grip, than I could with a comparable Canon or Nikon, although the Nikon was a close second.

Same with cars. We have two big American sedans..that I can fit my over size carcass in comfortably. I'm also happy with the reliability and performance of both my Buick and Impala and my Pentax.

I find I don't need some nit picker journalist (apologies to all the fair minded, non nit picking journalists out there ) in a magazine/blog, video report etc., telling me how he/she likes/dislikes what I have tried and like well enough to buy and use. If it works well for my needs than I get it.

Why confuse the issue ? Possibly my attitude towards buying a product has changed as I age. At this point I just get what I like and want and don't bother/worry about what others think.

Being a crusty old curmudgeon has it's benefits, I have determined.

[leekil]

Leekil didn't use comparative size. Since the Nikon and the Sony have more megapixels 1:1 is more zoomed in.

I just posted what the DPReview comparison scene shows. But they seem to show the same field of view in all the samples, so I would say that the Nikon and Sony, with more megapixels, would be *less* zoomed in (less than 1:1) since they have the same field of view.

---------- Post added 06-01-18 at 11:28 PM ----------

My guess is, there's no software that will match a Pentax K-1 mkII with a non-pentax camera. Why would Pentax put a whole chip in a camera that performed worse than any existing software?

Everyone is acting like Pentax is stupid.

Well, it could be argued that Canon is stupid, since their most recent version of the 6D didn't really have an upgrade to their low-light performance which has been around fora while in their newer 5D models. It's not unheard-of.

Are there going to be images posted? What I'd be looking at would be, same noise, same contrast and micro-contrast, same saturation and light values, better detail on the final image after PP on both images.

While looking at the DPReview test scene, it struck me how unrepresentative of regular photography it is. It is almost totally flat objects with I guess flat lighting, so there is little opportunity for contrast of micro contrast. (Though those are contributed to by the lenses as well.) The skin tones presented are from printed out photos (I guess), so there's a second level of reproduction to introduce additional error. Also, there are so many things in the scene, that any of the objects only use a small fraction of the resolution of the image, which is not necessarily ideal.

It would be nice if they also had a couple actual physical objects that they could photograph for a comparison, like plants or people, though there would be logistical difficulties in reproducing the same lighting and image from one test to another.

[BigMackCam]

Are there going to be images posted? What I'd be looking at would be, same noise, same contrast and micro-contrast, same saturation and light values, better detail on the final image after PP on both images.

Norm, did you see my slightly earlier message?

DPR's K1ii Re-shoot is up: Score now 80% - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

That was a comparison between the raw K-1II image with no additional NR, and the raw K-1 image processed to approximately the same level of luminance and colour noise. To my eyes, the processed K-1 looks slightly more detailed in the magenta and red areas. The software I used was Darktable, set to VNG4 demosaicing (it looks very similar using AMaZE). I can go through the processing options applied if you like.

I'm not trying to make the K-1II out as "the bad guy"... Based on the test shots I've scene, the image quality is excellent. All I'm saying is that in examining higher-ISO captures of that test scene, the K-1II loses a tiny amount of detail in isolated areas due to in-camera noise reduction, and that the equivalent K-1 files can be cleaned up in post to a slightly higher standard.

If you want me to try any other post processing and post further crops, I'd be happy to. Let me know what you'd like to see

[Kunzite]

'a bit' of detail loss? It looks totally mushy on the K-1 II shot to me

You forgot to put on your glasses.

[ffking]

Leekil didn't use comparative size. Since the Nikon and the Sony have more megapixels 1:1 is more zoomed in.

To my eye that doesn't quite explain what I was talking about, but my understanding of the engineering side of digital imagery has never been my speciality

[BigMackCam]

I can spot the blotches instantly. I didn't have to A / B for even a minute to spot the the differences... its very obvious in the magenta material especially.

Yes, that's where it's most noticeable. But I'd also mention that I had to look over the test scene shots in detail to find just one or two isolated areas where the NR has had any negative impact - and this is at pixel-peeping levels.

If you look at my comparison using Darktable, though, you might feel that the K-1II image looks slightly more detailed than in DPR's comparison tool. It's still not quite as good as the K-1, but the detail loss isn't as pronounced. I suspect that's a result of software-specific demosaicing and default processing. It's very clear that Lightroom applies some degree of noise reduction (both colour and luminance) even if you set those sliders to zero in the Develop module. Darktable doesn't do that - or, if it does, it's less heavy-handed about it. The downside is that images look much noisier when they're imported, but the user has more control to apply the most appropriate noise reduction and other "base processing" techniques...

[Rondec]

I think it is reasonable for Pentax to release a firmware update that would allow tweaking of when the accelerator processing kicks in. That certainly would satisfy the RAW purists who don't want anything going on behind the scenes on their RAW files.

That said, there are a few things to mention. First of all, we are looking at pixel level comparisons, not images. It is true that if you took a one hundred percent crop from a K-1 II image you could probably see some smoothing, but that isn't really the way photography works and for the most part at normal printing/viewing sizes the differences will be imperceptible. In addition, the main reason to purchase a K-1 II over a K-1 is the accelerator chip. With the cost of the K-1 being quite a bit cheaper, if you think you can do better than its noise reduction algorithms you've save quite a bit of money. The rest of the differences in auto focus and dynamic pixel shift are very small. Finally, one of the biggest things that the accelerator chip does is save time. If you are a wedding photographer and this opens up 12K images for you without having to spend a bunch of time in post processing and purchase of a third party noise reduction package, you will probably go for it. Formal shots will still be shot at low iso. However this will give more leeway in shooting ceremony and reception photos -- possibly without using a flash. These aren't photos that are printed large by any means and people won't pixel peep them, but they still are nice photos to have.

The question isn't if you can see tiny differences between K-1 II photos and other camera's photos at 100 percent. It is whether a client will be satisfied if you give them a K-1 II image shot at, say, 6400. There is no doubt in my mind that they would be.

[biz-engineer]

Why would Pentax put a whole chip in a camera that performed worse than any existing software?

Because it frees up processing power from the main CPU for better AF tracking in burst mode. That's why the chip is called "accelerator". K1 II AF is more reactive than that of the K1.