Originally posted by BruceBanner Interesting, I'd be keen for you to elaborate.
Through the grapevine I hear these things about the K-1ii;
1) IQ not as good
2) Colours worse (duller)
3) Dynamic PS is cool, but not necessary, stand PS is still king.
4) AF is better, but really only for targets moving away from the shooter (ie bum shots lol).
I've considered the upgrade, but more from an additional warranty perspective than the features. What are you finding that is 'better'? (no troll, serious question).
1) IQ is fine for me. Plus no more of that annoying shutter shock problem. SR seems to work better too. Which is important as I get older and more shaky. Some shots that I took at 1/12 second yesterday turned out fine.
2) Dull colours can be easily fixed on post processing. RAW images always look dull to me anyway.
3) Dynamic Pixel Shift works as advertised. People can choose to use it or not as they please.
4) AF is a bit better all around. As good as the K1 is the K1-II is a bit better in all situations. It may not be the best action photography camera out there, but you can certainly learn to use it and get good results. I use a lot of manual focus lenses and often turn off manual focus on my AF lenses. Focus confirmation seems a bit better than on the K1 and the K1 is already pretty good in that department too.
Because I wanted to pay off my credit cards and had to pay school taxes last month, I chose not to get my K1 upgraded and it seems the window is now closed in the US. I kind of regret not just getting it done anyway. It seems that when using the K1 I have to take more care and use the TAv mode more than I want to. Especially when using the D FA 28-105 lens.