[Winder]

JPEG processing and variations in white balance proved to be the most prominent differences

Can you be more specific concerning white balance? I know you are talking about the JPEG output, but how is it different than Nikon?

[Adam]

Can you be more specific concerning white balance? I know you are talking about the JPEG output, but how is it different than Nikon?

Generally-speaking, the K-1 felt very similar to the K-3 when it came to color/white-balance. Pentax has always favored richer colors, which leads to slightly more saturated reds and light purples in the default profile. Also, for portraits, at high-ISO, the Nikon produced more natural colors (though the K-1 had clearer details). This is all based on brief testing, so definitely stay tuned for the in-depth review.

[rawr]

stay tuned for the in-depth review

A test request: pls try the K-1 out with a selection of P-TTL flashes - bounce flash exposure accuracy, any delay in flash triggering etc. (Ideally with Pentax and some Metz flashes). In recent history, some of these flash issues have been troublesome for Pentax.

[KDAFA]

I just ordered my "D810-lite"...lol.. aka Pentax K-1.

Congratulations on placing your order!

I find it rather curious to think of the K-1 as a "lite" version of the D810.

In spending an extra USD1k for the D810 as compared to the K-1, what I mainly gain is a more sophisticated AF system, useful eg. for high speed sports, and better video; if those are required. (Even so, the 5fps rate limits the AF's usefulness for fast-burst sports work.)

But, what do I stand to lose in the D810?

1. Pixel shift capability for ultimate IQ
2. 5-axis In-body Stabilisation, for ALL lenses mounted
3. AA filter simulator, switchable, to fight moire when needed
4. Astrotracer capability
5. Flexible LCD
6. GPS built-in
7. WiFi built-in

In my view, it is rather the D810 which is a "K-1 lite".

And this is with the D810 priced at 1000 bucks extra!!

---

Last edited by KDAFA; 03-15-2016 at 02:14 AM.

[falconeye]

Do you directly contradict those who say Ricoh did significantly alter sensor peripherals; and who say once Sony has set up the manufacturing process custom alterations are cost-effective? You KNOW THIS FOR FACT? Really?

I don't see anymore posts by bizengineer.

But normally, when a sensor is reused by another brand, the Bayer filter is altered to meet the color calibration standards of that other brand. I assume the same has happened here.

---------- Post added 15th Mar 2016 at 01:55 ----------

I learned at WPPI that the K-1 uses the same Sony sensor as the Nikon D800, though the sensor has been adapted to Pentax's specifications

Adam, thanks for the clarification.

It already was obvious to me from the available info. But what official source can you cite for this info (to make this an actual fact)?

[nomadkng]

Congratulations on placing your order!

I find it rather curious to think of the K-1 as a "lite" version of the D810.

In spending an extra USD1k for the D810 as compared to the K-1, what I mainly gain is a more sophisticated AF system, useful eg. for high speed sports, and better video; if those are required. (Even so, the 5fps rate limits the AF's usefulness for fast-burst sports work.)

But, what do I stand to lose in the D810?

1. Pixel shift capability for ultimate IQ
2. 5-axis In-body Stabilisation, for ALL lenses mounted
3. AA filter simulator, switchable, to fight moire when needed
4. Astrotracer capability
5. Flexible LCD
6. GPS built-in
7. WiFi built-in

In my view, it is rather the D810 which is a "K-1 lite".

And this is with the D810 priced at 1000 bucks extra!!

You bring up some interesting points and it is mostly likely the Nikon AF superiority that has colored my opinion.

Perhaps after ownership and use of the K-1 I will see more value in the Pixel shift, since my K-3 does not have it and RAW support is minimal at best, this feature is not yet a selling point for me.
I actually shoot with IBIS off for my sports/wildlife work since I have found that it has been more of a hinderance, especially for panning work or where sudden changes of camera aim occur. Maybe the K-1 system is better.
Moire has never been a concern for me, given easy PP corrections. Since the one area I don't shoot is fashion, I don't foresee ever using an AA filter sim.
I DO like the idea of the flexible LCD, and I'm excited to see it in the field, especially when perched on rocks in the middle of a stream.
The Wi-Fi capabilities could also be a plus, if they are more expansive than the current K-3 capabilities.
Astrotracer and GPS could be handy, and I will admit I'm curious about the whole night sky shooting interface I read about somewhere recently. Being able to tell the camera to take dark frames automatically in a series of shots has piqued my interest.

[monochrome]

I don't see anymore posts by bizengineer.

But normally, when a sensor is reused by another brand, the Bayer filter is altered to meet the color calibration standards of that other brand. I assume the same has happened here.

---------- Post added 15th Mar 2016 at 01:55 ----------


Adam, thanks for the clarification.

It already was obvious to me from the available info. But what official source can you cite for this info (to make this an actual fact)?

Further clarifications on the development done to the K-1's Sony sensor by Pentax engineers. An article / interview posted on the K-1 Special Site.

[ffking]

"PENTAX believes, however, that, no matter how advanced technologies may become, image quality is always something perceived by the human eye, and is the product of human sensibility. The PENTAX K-1 is the camera that reminds you of this indisputable fact!"

It's not just the product, it's the whole approach that makes me a proud Pentaxian

[ChatMechant]

That was a fantastic read. I cried a little.

It's not just the product, it's the whole approach that makes me a proud Pentaxian

Amen!

[falconeye]

Further clarifications on the development done to the K-1's Sony sensor by Pentax engineers. An article / interview posted on the K-1 Special Site.

Let me cite a paragraph from that site where they pretend to quote an engineer:

“It’s not possible to achieve high sensitivity simply by reducing sensor noise, because the circuit configuration of the substrate to which the sensor is mounted greatly affects the type of generated noise. That’s why we designed an original substrate for the PENTAX K-1 by making the best use of our know-how.”

I am sorry to say so, but that is utterly nonsense and I have a hard time to believe an engineer actually said so. The sensor features a full digital readout and the specific daughterboard Pentax has developed has no effect on the noise the sensor captures (assuming a minimum technical standard). Pentax marketing is counting on less educated readers. But that always fires back in this internet age. Didn't they learn a thing or two over the last couple of years?

Therefore, I must say information spread by Pentax about the sensor cannot be regarded reliable information anymore.

[pathdoc]

n article / interview posted on the K-1 Special Site.

Wow, they didn't just crib the Nikon's sensor and drop it in; they practically redesigned and rebuilt the (arguably) more important half of it. No wonder it's taken them so long.

[Snakeisthestuff]

Let me cite a paragraph from that site where they pretend to quote an engineer:
I am sorry to say so, but that is utterly nonsense and I have a hard time to believe an engineer actually said so. The sensor features a full digital readout and the specific daughterboard Pentax has developed has no effect on the noise the sensor captures (assuming a minimum technical standard). Pentax marketing is counting on less educated readers. But that always fires back in this internet age. Didn't they learn a thing or two over the last couple of years?

Therefore, I must say information spread by Pentax about the sensor cannot be regarded reliable information anymore.

Could not heat / electromagnetic fields of the circuitry on the substrate introduce noise to the sensor when they are so close to each other?

[falconeye]

Could not heat / electromagnetic fields of the circuitry on the substrate introduce noise to the sensor when they are so close to each other?

That's why I said "assuming a minimum technical standard" (like the one taught to circuit design engineers and normally enforced by their design tools anyway). There shouldn't be an effect whatsoever on the observable noise (and if there were, the effect would rather be malfunctioning than extra noise). That's why, e.g., D800E and A7r with their same sensor measure the same on DxOmark (within 1dB error margins).

Wrt heat, the K-1 actually has a disadvantage because it uses a small daughterboard to support the SR mechanics and which dissipates heat less well. However, measurable heat effects should only show up in long-time exposures.

I am sure Pentax counts on a missing capability of their readers to understand that this sentence, which was true with old sensor designs, is now a lie.

[Kunzite]

Let me cite a paragraph from that site where they pretend to quote an engineer:
I am sorry to say so, but that is utterly nonsense and I have a hard time to believe an engineer actually said so. The sensor features a full digital readout and the specific daughterboard Pentax has developed has no effect on the noise the sensor captures (assuming a minimum technical standard). Pentax marketing is counting on less educated readers. But that always fires back in this internet age. Didn't they learn a thing or two over the last couple of years?

Therefore, I must say information spread by Pentax about the sensor cannot be regarded reliable information anymore.

Maybe we should ask a sensor expert about this?

[ffking]

I am sure Pentax counts on a missing capability of their readers to understand that this sentence, which was true with old sensor designs, is now a lie.

I really have no argument with your technical knowledge, which is far greater than mine, but I can't understand why Ricoh/Pentax would lie about this - what do they have to gain?