[PePe]

Uhm, I mentioned D800E, not D810 which is well refined and updated model from D800x level. D800E about equals K-1 in performance. D810 is ahead of that with its ISO64 for one key feature. Extra features like PS have their uses but more often than not they fail in real life.

I write these notes because I have experience of a huge amount of different DSLR and MILC models from the last 7 years or so. All small formats included, m4/3, APS-C and FF. I have found K-1 selling price very weird reflecting on its feature set and what it tries to accomplish.

Nikon price is higher for D810 (their current hi-MP model) but as a customer I get: Local service and support with fast turnarounds (3-4 days) AND bog standard workhorse which just works. Has not been so with K-1. My gear has spent more time in service than in my bag.

You may be cutting corners in your verdict about the perfomance of the K-1
However, you are quite right when it comes to the level of repair services in our part of the world. The changes introduced a couple of years ago were a real setback for Pentax users in Finland. Canon and Nikon have a clear advantage here.
Too bad your copy was a bad one. It is not fun when it happens to you- I know from earlier personal experience with a K-5 with a stained sensor. However, there are occasional lemons no matter which brand you are using. My K-1 is working fine at least for the time beeing. Knock on wood...

[UncleVanya]

Well this is wrong thread, sorry about that but my K-1 was plagued by the white dot problem, was once in the service and now my dealer does not even know where the body is currently. No answers from Sweden. I have a loaner but I do not dare pull all stunts with it I would like to. Too much hassle if I manage to screw up the loaner. And this is my analysis that for price so low, something has to give. PS works so-so with Adobe products, AT calibration is a hit or miss, QC seems to be mediocre. I would have paid D810 price happily for a working product which does things as advertised.

AT Calibration? AF maybe? Not sure what this means.

PS working with Adobe is on Adobe not Pentax. There is certainly a hope that this will improve as Adobe takes the time to address these issues - complain to them hopefully that will help.

All cameras have lemons that slip by. The sensor stain issue that Nikon had and many other issues in the past few years had a number of users fleeing that brand - which I think is unfortunate but people equate their own experiences with an overall quality (much as you are doing). The only more prevalent issues with the K-1 that I have heard of is the mode dial failure which seems to be fixed with a new part.
Repair services for Pentax have been pretty bad in places. This goes hand in hand with being such a small brand in terms of penetration. The chicken and egg question is can they surmount this and as they gain market share (if this happens) will they address it?

ISO 64 on the D810 is quite interesting. I wish the K-1 offered it. Since the sensor is likely the same from the D800 on I'm not sure what technical barriers exist to this. I wish it were made available in a firmware update.

I really hope you read some of the comparison reviews out there, none seem to feel the way you do. None accuse the Pentax of being too cheap to be viable nor do they complain about old tech - much the contrary. The D810 seems to be a bit overpriced but there are real benefits in AF and flash and maybe ISO 64. The Pentax K-1 offers a few benefits as well including Tilt screen, and Pixel Shift. The end choice between them is for the photographer to make.

ATCalibration, I believe is Astrotracer. I recommend to calibrate with LCD in it's resting position and also when shooting. A changed position of the LCD changes something so that the tracer won't track as good. Also reading some of the old threads on how to use AT is a good idea since it has some limitations not written down by Pentax but by the users. I find that the K-1 tracks better than the K-3 did. Not decided if it is better or as the K-5 that was really good...

[MJKoski]

Well, Adobe cannot get the motion correction to work it seems. So there is need for Ricoh co-operation but it seems to do nothing at that front. Failing to get things working with Adobe converter is one step closer to failure.

AT, yes, astro-tracer calibration. I found out that it works best when I leave my cellphone at least a meter away from the camera. LCD position did exactly nothing with my tests with 15-30. Neither did zooming in/out. Then there is the case of UWA trailing.

I have no need to check online reviews as I already saw Chambers' review and have plenty of my own material for own comparisons from other Sony 36MP variants (all of them). D810 @ ISO64 is clear winner in my book. But that is my opinion, rent and see for yourself. Pixel-Shift is another case but I have not had much luck with it when aiming for competition grade images (and whether it is allowed is another case...)

[Qwntm]

Most of the people here only have significant experience with Pentax cameras, so for them the K-1 is a big step forward. AF is the weakness of the K-1, but you need to change all the default settings to get decent performance. My only real complaint about the K-1 has been AF-C performance and for people who use back button AF, AF-C is what I stay on 95% of the time. The AF Hold feature is always turned off. Center point AF seems to be the fastest. 1st Frame Action in AF-C is set to focus priority. Action in AF-C is set to Focus Priority. The default has them set to Auto. Some times I will use the 9 point area AF is the light is good and I'm at F/5.6 or where DoF is not an issue. Usually I'm shooting wide open to get as fast of a shutter speed as possible and keep ISO down. I shot with the Canon 5D for many years and the 5DII has the same AF. By changing the settings in camera I have found the K-1 to be just as good and maybe a little better as the those two cameras. Now obviously the 5DIII and 5DIV are faster and more accurate, and the K-1 is a generation or two behind Canon and Nikon, but it is more than capable of being a wedding workhorse. Ricoh's factory default "Auto" settings are awful. Like the factory JPEG defaults.... just very poor.

I would never expect a Pentax AF system to be comparable to Canon or Nikon's best and brightest.


To be clear, and the reason for the post, was the K1 Af not performing to at least the standard of the K3II (or even the K5IIs) in the same conditions at the same event.


So far I am putting it down to the learning curve of the new machine and it's idiosyncrasies. It's an anomaly with a data point of 1. But something I am keeping my eye on.

---------- Post added 10-24-16 at 03:22 PM ----------

it seems unusual that nobody else has encountered such tremendous difficulties with the K1 ( why would a professional photographer take a new camera and not test it out before the bride sails past his non focusing camera??)

So what are you really saying?


Where did I say "I had tremendous difficulty shooting a professional wedding with my K1?"


I had three shots that I missed out of 1500 because of the AF, none of which included the bride in any of them.


How exactly would you test a new camera out before taking it to a wedding for the minor anomaly that it takes 3 seconds to wake up instead of 1/2 a second like my k3II and K5iis?


If you want to play "dump on the pro," at least make some claims based upon reality. Thanks.

[mohb]

Where did I say "I had tremendous difficulty shooting a professional wedding with my K1?"


I had three shots that I missed out of 1500 because of the AF, none of which included the bride in any of them.

have the camera just gag as the couples come towards me and pass me by with no shot taken, which is what happened.

So was the bride in the frame or not, you seem a little unclear?

[Qwntm]

So was the bride in the frame or not, you seem a little unclear?

Where does it say "Bride and Groom?" "Couples" would seem to imply bridal party, unless you attend weddings where there are multiple Bride's and Groom's getting married all at once...

Your initial premise implied that I had no idea what I was doing while claiming I was a pro wedding shooter. I think maybe you have confused my original posting with some of the other people who have chimed in here with their possibly unrelated issues... This thread has covered quite a few issues other than what I originally posted about. It would be pretty easy to lose track of who said what about what. If so, no worries.

---

Last edited by Qwntm; 10-24-2016 at 06:42 PM.

[MJKoski]

The idea of most brand loyal forums is to call people with names when they have found an issue with brand's product. Seems to be universal problem.

Only praise is approved.

[biz-engineer]

The conditions are unknown and subjective to everyone else in this thread... But having shot weddings professionally since 1985, and having used various cameras and systems from Hasselblads to Canons to Nikons, etc. I can tell you the performance (or lack thereof) of the K1 under these conditions was surprising, and why I started the thread.

Trying to be objective: this issue of low light AF has been raised by a few owners, soon after the release of the K1. I also noticed this issue relative to the K3 I still had a the time. So, was the reason why I spent time to analyze the AF behaviour of the K1 versus K3 in the same dark conditions. I recommended some things that were rejected , because some people are on denial. On my side, I'm trying to figure the weaknesses of a camera and work around it. My finding for the K1 was, honestly, 1) AF low light sensitivity slightly inferior to the K3 and 2) trigger of AF assist light not up to date in firmware. There is a specific zone of lighting intensity where the K1 hesitate and takes a while to lock focus even if the lens is in focus already (you can check it by shooting AFC instread of AFS). In low light condition, it was recommended to use the back button AF, which , in essence is equivalent to select FPS priority over Focus priority while forcing the user to add a small delay between the focusing operation and triggering the shutter. In other words, if you use a K1, backbutton focus for an instant and press the shutter the shot will be in focus. I'm still surprised that Ricoh did not address this issue in firmware (it's possible by using the AE meter value to timing out the AF lock condition), although, from what I've seen in the past, those guys are able to do complicated things that no-one asked for and mess around with camera basics. Anyway, I don't think we can blame Ricoh for the K1, because, from the software standpoint, it is a pretty complex thing (pixel shift, + crop modes + ES and all other options combined together) and relatively free of any bugs right at the time of its release.

---------- Post added 28-10-16 at 21:58 ----------

ISO 64 on the D810 is quite interesting. I wish the K-1 offered it.

Having had the experience to shoot side by side with the K1 and D810, paper specifications aren't all that good. For instance, due to the difference between actual iso and real iso on the newer Nikons models, the D810 must be underexposed compared to K1, in order not to blow up the high lights. That's the trick of Nikon, basically the same sensor as K1(with the same infamous white dot issue) , but cheating on the real exposure time. If you wish your K1 to perform DR like a D810 , expose your K1 ISO100 with +0.3ev of exposure compensation and you get the same as a D810.

[UncleVanya]

Having had the experience to shoot side by side with the K1 and D810, paper specifications aren't all that good. For instance, due to the difference between actual iso and real iso on the newer Nikons models, the D810 must be underexposed compared to K1, in order not to blow up the high lights. That's the trick of Nikon, basically the same sensor as K1(with the same infamous white dot issue) , but cheating on the real exposure time. If you wish your K1 to perform DR like a D810 , expose your K1 ISO100 with +0.3ev of exposure compensation and you get the same as a D810.

I thought I had read something like that but all the data I could find wasn't clear on this point at all. I couldn't find any direct ISO data related to accuracy of the models and brands.

[Qwntm]

Trying to be objective: this issue of low light AF has been raised by a few owners, soon after the release of the K1. I also noticed this issue relative to the K3 I still had a the time. So, was the reason why I spent time to analyze the AF behaviour of the K1 versus K3 in the same dark conditions. I recommended some things that were rejected , because some people are on denial. On my side, I'm trying to figure the weaknesses of a camera and work around it. My finding for the K1 was, honestly, 1) AF low light sensitivity slightly inferior to the K3 and 2) trigger of AF assist light not up to date in firmware. There is a specific zone of lighting intensity where the K1 hesitate and takes a while to lock focus even if the lens is in focus already (you can check it by shooting AFC instread of AFS). In low light condition, it was recommended to use the back button AF, which , in essence is equivalent to select FPS priority over Focus priority while forcing the user to add a small delay between the focusing operation and triggering the shutter. In other words, if you use a K1, backbutton focus for an instant and press the shutter the shot will be in focus. I'm still surprised that Ricoh did not address this issue in firmware (it's possible by using the AE meter value to timing out the AF lock condition), although, from what I've seen in the past, those guys are able to do complicated things that no-one asked for and mess around with camera basics. Anyway, I don't think we can blame Ricoh for the K1, because, from the software standpoint, it is a pretty complex thing (pixel shift, + crop modes + ES and all other options combined together) and relatively free of any bugs right at the time of its release.

---------- Post added 28-10-16 at 21:58 ----------



Having had the experience to shoot side by side with the K1 and D810, paper specifications aren't all that good. For instance, due to the difference between actual iso and real iso on the newer Nikons models, the D810 must be underexposed compared to K1, in order not to blow up the high lights. That's the trick of Nikon, basically the same sensor as K1(with the same infamous white dot issue) , but cheating on the real exposure time. If you wish your K1 to perform DR like a D810 , expose your K1 ISO100 with +0.3ev of exposure compensation and you get the same as a D810.

Very interesting. It does seem that there is a certain low light level where the AF on the K1 starts to hesitate, and then below that in near darkness, the K1 AF is instant again.


I shot the D810 last year for a while, and there really is no discernable difference between ISO 100 on the K1 and iso 64 on the D810. If there is, I can't see it or it doesn't affect my work in any way.

[rawr]

I couldn't find any direct ISO data related to accuracy of the models and brands.

The best place to look would be DxOMark. They have ISO tests for most cameras that compare the specified ISO with the measured or 'real' ISO for most cameras:


The D810 ISO measurement is not wildly different from the K-1's, but some other cameras do 'cheat' quite a bit re labelled ISO vs actual ISO.

(The more you look into the DxOMark data, it's clear both are great sensors, BTW)

[UncleVanya]

The best place to look would be DxOMark. They have ISO tests for most cameras that compare the specified ISO with the measured or 'real' ISO for most cameras:


The D810 ISO measurement is not wildly different from the K-1's, but some other cameras do 'cheat' quite a bit re labelled ISO vs actual ISO.

(The more you look into the DxOMark data, it's clear both are great sensors, BTW)

Thanks. That chart makes sense except for the very first d810 dot. It seems to imply that there is a claimed ISO 32 that is actually ISO 50. Then a claimed ISO 64 that is also 50. After that it looks reasonably accurate but slightly lower than claimed ISO. Whereas the k1 is dead on. The first dot is where I get confused since the d810 Offers ISO 32 but it appears to be an illusion. What benefit does it give if it isn't really different from the ISO 64 setting? It seems you would just be overexposing the shots by a stop.

[rawr]

It seems you would just be overexposing the shots by a stop.

That is more or less exactly what the D810 is doing:



Base ISO, with EV compensation.

[UncleVanya]

That is more or less exactly what the D810 is doing:



Base ISO, with EV compensation.

Then why test it as 32? DXO makes me nuts sometimes. Also does this mean you can't use ev +5 at ISO 64? I'm confused. I think it is unrelated but the language used is a bit confusing.