Tony Northrup - K-1 Review

officiousbystander · 06-18-2016, 10:11 PM - **2 Likes**

Is this an elaborate way of saying next time Ricoh should put him on the new model review list?

stevebrot · 06-18-2016, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by interested_observer

Tethering - this has been going on for years now (k7, k5, k5II, k5iis, k30, k50, k-s1, k-s2, k-01, 645D, 645Z), since they removed their tethering utility after the K20. Pentax keeps handling the tethering issue poorly. Just go find a third party that will do it correctly, and license it. It is not that difficult. Done well this should be a plus. Just do it.

To be fair, I believe he used the LR plug-in (did not use the Pentax tethering software) and his beef was the download speed and the lack of fast (CF) cards to move things along.

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

As for the purported difference USB3 would have made, versus USB2, I couldn't say, as I haven't used it

The difference is night and day. FWIW, I believe the "USB-3 not invented when component physical dimensions were spec'd" claim to be quite lame. The K-3 is almost three years old and at the time of its release USB-3 support was just at the start of ready availability. If it were a priority, there was plenty of time to source a suitable I/O card during the prototype design iterations. If nothing else, the pieces from the K-3 should have been in the running. After all, they worked the built-in GPS/Astro-tracer from the K-3II into the mix. That should give some indication of flexibility in various phases in the time line. I believe it was just a poor decision that was made and not caught until too late in the prototype phase. (Can't believe none of the alpha and beta testers did not bring this to their attention.)

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

I agree with the remarks others have made about the inadequacy of his lens comparisons.

Me three. A little walk through the B&H product listings should have shown a fairly decent selection of lens options (35 lenses priced from $134-$5000 and spanning 14mm - 500mm). I believe I could build a K-1 kit to cover the bases for less money than his estimate with the "holy trinity", and if willing to buy used and concentrate on other than sports or wildlife, I can definitely beat the lens prices for the Canon and Nikon kits he compared and bring in the total price at more than $1000 less as a result.

Steve

stevebrot · 06-18-2016, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

In my experience, when someone uses the word "but" it means they have stopped listening.

...meaning he was doing a monologue to the camera...

Steve

Fogel70 · 06-18-2016, 10:55 PM - **2 Likes**

I hope everyone can get as good deal on K1 as Tony. He said that K1 is 100% cheaper than 5DS, so he must be able to get K1 for free

Not a Number · 06-18-2016, 11:27 PM

Is he using the right software for Pixel Shift development? I know DCU is based on Silkypix but it is not called Silkypix and the screenshot he shows is totally differenct from what DCU looks like.

stevebrot · 06-18-2016, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Not a Number

Is he using the right software for Pixel Shift development? I know DCU is based on Silkypix but it is not called Silkypix and the screenshot he shows is totally differenct from what DCU looks like.

I was wondering the same thing. DCU is really ugly in the interface dept, whereas what he was using looked very contemporary.

Steve

stevebrot · 06-18-2016, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Where did he get that ISO100 on K1 is actually ISO50?

I think he speaks without knowledge, except for the part that ISO between camera makes is not consistent. What piqued my curiosity is what he meant by not complying with ISO spec. IIRC, there is no ISO standard for digital camera sensitivity Edit:(per se). What we have is an attempt to provide results comparable to films of the same rating. I believe that there were some ~~ancient recommendations~~Edit: not ancient, but also not recent, but no standard on the same level as exists for film where a given luminance must result in a given negative density and so on.

Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-21-2016 at 10:45 AM.

biz-engineer · 06-18-2016, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I think he speaks without knowledge, except for the part that ISO between camera makes is not consistent. What piqued my curiosity is what he meant by not complying with ISO spec. IIRC, there is no ISO standard for digital camera sensitivity. What we have is an attempt to provide results comparable to films of the same rating. I believe that there were some ancient recommendations, but no standard on the same level as exists for film where a given luminance must result in a given negative density and so on.

I'm confused. If the aperture and shutter speeds values are actual ones and the same values are set on both cameras (assuming the lens Tstop are the same...), if the Pentax raw image is more exposed than the Nikon one, then, it means that the Pentax actual ISO is 100 and the Nikon actual ISO is less than 100 ? He kind of stated the contrary. I'm gonna check it with a light meter !

---------- Post added 19-06-16 at 09:15 ----------

=> Measured with Sekonic light meter, Sekonic indicates ISO100; 1/160; f8. Pentax K1 shutter speed is 1/200th, at ISO100, f8. So if we consider that f8 = t8 and there is not error is light metering between the light meter and the K1, K1 ISO100 would actually be ISO125 and not ISO50.

Kunzite · 06-19-2016, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Not a Number

Is he using the right software for Pixel Shift development? I know DCU is based on Silkypix but it is not called Silkypix and the screenshot he shows is totally differenct from what DCU looks like.

He's using Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 7 (see the title bar). I think Silkypix, while nowhere near as bad as Adobe, is not as good coping with artifacts as DCU; but I've only done a few tests using images provided by various sites.

HopelessTogger · 06-19-2016, 02:18 AM

Pentax has some work to do. Autofocus and buffer speed.

Still a wonderful camera.

(Those new zooms need a price reduction too).

kooks · 06-19-2016, 02:37 AM

Another thing that i dont agree is with his final statement about the K1 fitting Portrait photography.. IMO K1 is a totally perfect tool for portraits, he basically said that he doesnt recomend it because it doenst fit HIS SHOOTING STYLE, that is more into fast movements and high speed burst etc.. but for most portrat photographers that is not the case. K1 is way more into the Yes side than into the No for portraits. Sports, well.. thats another story and we all knwo that perhaps is not the greatest tool for it, but landscape and portrats.. thats where the real thing is for K1.

PENTAX LEEBO · 06-19-2016, 02:53 AM - **1 Like**

As much as I feel that some people may find these videos helpful and was really well edited video with music and the use of monochrome. My impressions are that he felt jilted that Ricoh never sent him one to test. This is maybe why he makes comparisons with cameras a lot more expensive. To me it holds up well to the big guns. I personally wouldn't use this as a given on this camera. If you know what you want then these videos seem trivial and there are so many youtube videos about gear, this one not so complimentary and almost saying but look what you can get from say Nikon or Canon instead. No wonder Ricoh didn't send him one. The Pentax K1 is awesome and that's the end of it for me. You just have to handle one and you will know thanks. I'd also like to thank Ricoh for carrying on the development of the K1 it has been well worth the wait. USB 3 was not about when they were designing this camera. Says volumes about the time and care they must have put into this camera alone.

HopelessTogger · 06-19-2016, 02:56 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by PENTAX LEEBO

As much as I feel that some people may find these videos helpful and was really well edited video with music and the use of monochrome. My impressions are that he felt jilted that Ricoh never sent him one to test. This is maybe why he makes comparisons with cameras a lot more expensive. To me it holds up well to the big guns. I personally wouldn't use this as a given on this camera. If you know what you want then these videos seem trivial and there are so many youtube videos about gear, this one not so complimentary and almost saying but look what you can get from say Nikon or Canon instead. No wonder Ricoh didn't send him one. The Pentax K1 is awesome and that's the end of it for me. You just have to handle one and you will know thanks

Yup. +1.

**Rondec** · 06-19-2016, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

I'm confused. If the aperture and shutter speeds values are actual ones and the same values are set on both cameras (assuming the lens Tstop are the same...), if the Pentax raw image is more exposed than the Nikon one, then, it means that the Pentax actual ISO is 100 and the Nikon actual ISO is less than 100 ? He kind of stated the contrary. I'm gonna check it with a light meter !

---------- Post added 19-06-16 at 09:15 ----------

=> Measured with Sekonic light meter, Sekonic indicates ISO100; 1/160; f8. Pentax K1 shutter speed is 1/200th, at ISO100, f8. So if we consider that f8 = t8 and there is not error is light metering between the light meter and the K1, K1 ISO100 would actually be ISO125 and not ISO50.

We'll see how DXO Mark test things. I don't think most camera makers fudge on low iso much, but certainly at high iso they all fudge a little bit. My experience is that Pentax isn't as bad as Canon or Nikon in this department though.

Anyway, if base iso of this sensor really was iso 50, it would make a lot more sense for Pentax to offer an iso 50 setting, as that would be an extra feature, then to call iso 50 iso 100.

**RobA_Oz** · 06-19-2016, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

The difference is night and day. FWIW, I believe the "USB-3 not invented when component physical dimensions were spec'd" claim to be quite lame. The K-3 is almost three years old and at the time of its release USB-3 support was just at the start of ready availability. If it were a priority, there was plenty of time to source a suitable I/O card during the prototype design iterations. If nothing else, the pieces from the K-3 should have been in the running. After all, they worked the built-in GPS/Astro-tracer from the K-3II into the mix. That should give some indication of flexibility in various phases in the time line. I believe it was just a poor decision that was made and not caught until too late in the prototype phase. (Can't believe none of the alpha and beta testers did not bring this to their attention.)

My comment was about the usability of the actual interface, not the potential that replacing the USB2 with USB3 hardware might have made. I know the potential speed differences from computer usage. While the faster USB3 connection is highly desirable for actually transferring big or multiple files, tethering itself doesn't necessarily require that amount of speed, unless you're doing burst shooting or the like, in which case the more speed, the better, of course, if you want to see what's going on. Even then, I'm not sure you'd have a preview image to send down the pipe in between shots, anyway.

That aside, the rest of the hardware has to be able to keep up with the capability of the interface, and that may be the reason the slower USB2 port was retained, but others more knowledgeable in this area may care to comment on that.

06-18-2016, 10:27 PM	#17
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by interested_observer Tethering - this has been going on for years now (k7, k5, k5II, k5iis, k30, k50, k-s1, k-s2, k-01, 645D, 645Z), since they removed their tethering utility after the K20. Pentax keeps handling the tethering issue poorly. Just go find a third party that will do it correctly, and license it. It is not that difficult. Done well this should be a plus. Just do it. To be fair, I believe he used the LR plug-in (did not use the Pentax tethering software) and his beef was the download speed and the lack of fast (CF) cards to move things along. Originally posted by RobA_Oz As for the purported difference USB3 would have made, versus USB2, I couldn't say, as I haven't used it The difference is night and day. FWIW, I believe the "USB-3 not invented when component physical dimensions were spec'd" claim to be quite lame. The K-3 is almost three years old and at the time of its release USB-3 support was just at the start of ready availability. If it were a priority, there was plenty of time to source a suitable I/O card during the prototype design iterations. If nothing else, the pieces from the K-3 should have been in the running. After all, they worked the built-in GPS/Astro-tracer from the K-3II into the mix. That should give some indication of flexibility in various phases in the time line. I believe it was just a poor decision that was made and not caught until too late in the prototype phase. (Can't believe none of the alpha and beta testers did not bring this to their attention.) Originally posted by RobA_Oz I agree with the remarks others have made about the inadequacy of his lens comparisons. Me three. A little walk through the B&H product listings should have shown a fairly decent selection of lens options (35 lenses priced from $134-$5000 and spanning 14mm - 500mm). I believe I could build a K-1 kit to cover the bases for less money than his estimate with the "holy trinity", and if willing to buy used and concentrate on other than sports or wildlife, I can definitely beat the lens prices for the Canon and Nikon kits he compared and bring in the total price at more than $1000 less as a result. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 06-18-2016 at 10:34 PM.

06-18-2016, 11:59 PM	#23
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by stevebrot I think he speaks without knowledge, except for the part that ISO between camera makes is not consistent. What piqued my curiosity is what he meant by not complying with ISO spec. IIRC, there is no ISO standard for digital camera sensitivity. What we have is an attempt to provide results comparable to films of the same rating. I believe that there were some ancient recommendations, but no standard on the same level as exists for film where a given luminance must result in a given negative density and so on. I'm confused. If the aperture and shutter speeds values are actual ones and the same values are set on both cameras (assuming the lens Tstop are the same...), if the Pentax raw image is more exposed than the Nikon one, then, it means that the Pentax actual ISO is 100 and the Nikon actual ISO is less than 100 ? He kind of stated the contrary. I'm gonna check it with a light meter ! ---------- Post added 19-06-16 at 09:15 ---------- => Measured with Sekonic light meter, Sekonic indicates ISO100; 1/160; f8. Pentax K1 shutter speed is 1/200th, at ISO100, f8. So if we consider that f8 = t8 and there is not error is light metering between the light meter and the K1, K1 ISO100 would actually be ISO125 and not ISO50. Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-19-2016 at 12:05 AM.

06-19-2016, 02:18 AM	#25
HopelessTogger Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Roi-et, Thailand Posts: 773	Pentax has some work to do. Autofocus and buffer speed. Still a wonderful camera. (Those new zooms need a price reduction too). Last edited by HopelessTogger; 06-19-2016 at 02:29 AM.

06-19-2016, 02:53 AM - 1 Like	#27
PENTAX LEEBO Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 111	Not sure? As much as I feel that some people may find these videos helpful and was really well edited video with music and the use of monochrome. My impressions are that he felt jilted that Ricoh never sent him one to test. This is maybe why he makes comparisons with cameras a lot more expensive. To me it holds up well to the big guns. I personally wouldn't use this as a given on this camera. If you know what you want then these videos seem trivial and there are so many youtube videos about gear, this one not so complimentary and almost saying but look what you can get from say Nikon or Canon instead. No wonder Ricoh didn't send him one. The Pentax K1 is awesome and that's the end of it for me. You just have to handle one and you will know thanks. I'd also like to thank Ricoh for carrying on the development of the K1 it has been well worth the wait. USB 3 was not about when they were designing this camera. Says volumes about the time and care they must have put into this camera alone. Last edited by PENTAX LEEBO; 06-19-2016 at 03:21 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tony Northrup currently testing a borrowed K-1!	lithedreamer	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	1	06-09-2016 04:24 AM
Tony Northrup live youtube stream on K-1	banep	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	60	02-23-2016 11:16 AM
Tony Northrup K-S2 Tutorial	AndyB	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	3	07-26-2015 07:30 PM
Tony Northrup reviews K-S2 along with competition (although some in higher class)	Spodeworld	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	1	05-25-2015 09:58 AM
Pentax K-S2 Review Tony Northrup	harrisonww	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	12	05-20-2015 05:46 PM

06-18-2016, 10:11 PM - 2 Likes	#16
officiousbystander Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 912	Is this an elaborate way of saying next time Ricoh should put him on the new model review list?

06-18-2016, 10:36 PM	#18
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Digitalis In my experience, when someone uses the word "but" it means they have stopped listening. ...meaning he was doing a monologue to the camera... Steve

06-18-2016, 10:55 PM - 2 Likes	#19
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	I hope everyone can get as good deal on K1 as Tony. He said that K1 is 100% cheaper than 5DS, so he must be able to get K1 for free

06-18-2016, 11:27 PM	#20
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	Is he using the right software for Pixel Shift development? I know DCU is based on Silkypix but it is not called Silkypix and the screenshot he shows is totally differenct from what DCU looks like.

06-18-2016, 11:36 PM	#21
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Not a Number Is he using the right software for Pixel Shift development? I know DCU is based on Silkypix but it is not called Silkypix and the screenshot he shows is totally differenct from what DCU looks like. I was wondering the same thing. DCU is really ugly in the interface dept, whereas what he was using looked very contemporary. Steve

06-18-2016, 11:43 PM	#22
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by biz-engineer Where did he get that ISO100 on K1 is actually ISO50? I think he speaks without knowledge, except for the part that ISO between camera makes is not consistent. What piqued my curiosity is what he meant by not complying with ISO spec. IIRC, there is no ISO standard for digital camera sensitivity Edit:(per se). What we have is an attempt to provide results comparable to films of the same rating. I believe that there were some ~~ancient recommendations~~Edit: not ancient, but also not recent, but no standard on the same level as exists for film where a given luminance must result in a given negative density and so on. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 06-21-2016 at 10:45 AM.

06-19-2016, 12:15 AM	#24
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Not a Number Is he using the right software for Pixel Shift development? I know DCU is based on Silkypix but it is not called Silkypix and the screenshot he shows is totally differenct from what DCU looks like. He's using Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 7 (see the title bar). I think Silkypix, while nowhere near as bad as Adobe, is not as good coping with artifacts as DCU; but I've only done a few tests using images provided by various sites.

06-19-2016, 02:37 AM	#26
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	Another thing that i dont agree is with his final statement about the K1 fitting Portrait photography.. IMO K1 is a totally perfect tool for portraits, he basically said that he doesnt recomend it because it doenst fit HIS SHOOTING STYLE, that is more into fast movements and high speed burst etc.. but for most portrat photographers that is not the case. K1 is way more into the Yes side than into the No for portraits. Sports, well.. thats another story and we all knwo that perhaps is not the greatest tool for it, but landscape and portrats.. thats where the real thing is for K1.

06-19-2016, 02:56 AM - 1 Like	#28
HopelessTogger Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Roi-et, Thailand Posts: 773	Originally posted by PENTAX LEEBO As much as I feel that some people may find these videos helpful and was really well edited video with music and the use of monochrome. My impressions are that he felt jilted that Ricoh never sent him one to test. This is maybe why he makes comparisons with cameras a lot more expensive. To me it holds up well to the big guns. I personally wouldn't use this as a given on this camera. If you know what you want then these videos seem trivial and there are so many youtube videos about gear, this one not so complimentary and almost saying but look what you can get from say Nikon or Canon instead. No wonder Ricoh didn't send him one. The Pentax K1 is awesome and that's the end of it for me. You just have to handle one and you will know thanks Yup. +1.

06-19-2016, 02:57 AM	#29
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by biz-engineer I'm confused. If the aperture and shutter speeds values are actual ones and the same values are set on both cameras (assuming the lens Tstop are the same...), if the Pentax raw image is more exposed than the Nikon one, then, it means that the Pentax actual ISO is 100 and the Nikon actual ISO is less than 100 ? He kind of stated the contrary. I'm gonna check it with a light meter ! ---------- Post added 19-06-16 at 09:15 ---------- => Measured with Sekonic light meter, Sekonic indicates ISO100; 1/160; f8. Pentax K1 shutter speed is 1/200th, at ISO100, f8. So if we consider that f8 = t8 and there is not error is light metering between the light meter and the K1, K1 ISO100 would actually be ISO125 and not ISO50. We'll see how DXO Mark test things. I don't think most camera makers fudge on low iso much, but certainly at high iso they all fudge a little bit. My experience is that Pentax isn't as bad as Canon or Nikon in this department though. Anyway, if base iso of this sensor really was iso 50, it would make a lot more sense for Pentax to offer an iso 50 setting, as that would be an extra feature, then to call iso 50 iso 100.

06-19-2016, 03:12 AM	#30
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	Originally posted by stevebrot The difference is night and day. FWIW, I believe the "USB-3 not invented when component physical dimensions were spec'd" claim to be quite lame. The K-3 is almost three years old and at the time of its release USB-3 support was just at the start of ready availability. If it were a priority, there was plenty of time to source a suitable I/O card during the prototype design iterations. If nothing else, the pieces from the K-3 should have been in the running. After all, they worked the built-in GPS/Astro-tracer from the K-3II into the mix. That should give some indication of flexibility in various phases in the time line. I believe it was just a poor decision that was made and not caught until too late in the prototype phase. (Can't believe none of the alpha and beta testers did not bring this to their attention.) My comment was about the usability of the actual interface, not the potential that replacing the USB2 with USB3 hardware might have made. I know the potential speed differences from computer usage. While the faster USB3 connection is highly desirable for actually transferring big or multiple files, tethering itself doesn't necessarily require that amount of speed, unless you're doing burst shooting or the like, in which case the more speed, the better, of course, if you want to see what's going on. Even then, I'm not sure you'd have a preview image to send down the pipe in between shots, anyway. That aside, the rest of the hardware has to be able to keep up with the capability of the interface, and that may be the reason the slower USB2 port was retained, but others more knowledgeable in this area may care to comment on that.