Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2017, 10:01 PM - 1 Like   #16
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,707
Original Poster
Yes I mainly bought the K-1 for resolution and cropability (which I find is incredible).. my shots are mostly on a tripod with a timer at base ISO. But I have a fairly short return period if the K-1 is faulty.. so I'd rather put it through the ringer now and get it sorted on return or warranty than discover a problem later and eat the repair costs.

03-06-2017, 11:25 PM - 1 Like   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,180
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If you print/view a K5 image and K1 image at the same size, the K1 image will look a lot cleaner. If you view them at pixel size they'll look the same.
Good summary.

---------- Post added 07-03-17 at 07:27 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
It's a lot of money to pay for about a one stop advantage, isn't it?
That's a lot of money, if you don't consider the life time of the camera system.
Frequent buyers of cheaper camera may actually spend more money overall.

Camera size is a valid argument, especially for the convenience of use, but smallest isn't better.
For me, a good sized camera is the camera that fit well in my hands for taking pictures, that's the case of the K3 and K1, but for example I hate using a camera like Olympus M43 Panasonic M43 because they don't have a good grip. The smallest camera I could handle would be of the size of an XT1, or the KP that is about the same size. Maybe ladies feel that M43 is the correct size for them.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 03-06-2017 at 11:43 PM.
03-07-2017, 04:56 AM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,078
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Yep.

The SNR 18% for this APS-C camera and a FF one like the K-1 or Nikon D810 using the same sensor wafer is practically identical.

You can do the following:


Go to Pentax K-5 II vs Nikon D800


Click on Measurements


Click on SNR 18%


Click on Screen


Repeat for Dynamic Range, Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity


For fun, click on ISO Sensitivity
Oh the good old print vs screen debate.

So use the screen tab if you intend to compare one pixel from each sensor and use the print tab if you want to compare the whole sensor. Usually people use the whole sensor when taking photos and thus compare the print tab. But the best thing is of course to understand the difference and check both tabs.
03-07-2017, 07:23 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,723
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Originally posted by jpzk Maybe that is the culprit ?
I still have my old K5 and also being told (from what I am reading on the K-1) that the K-1 beats the K5 in that aspect (noise).
That is only a guess but maybe the very long exposure has something to do with it? Noooo! please don't go there.. in the thread, that luftfluss linked, several people go several times around the horn over that until someone is called a troll.. Don't want it to get unfriendly like that here.
Hey ! No problem: no intention of turning this fine thread into a troll trap !
I thought this thread was very interesting and I was also wondering about the K-1 performance in that aspect since I have been considering a K-1 as well.
I'll be following this thread because of its content.

03-07-2017, 08:10 AM - 2 Likes   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 724
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Yes I mainly bought the K-1 for resolution and cropability (which I find is incredible).. my shots are mostly on a tripod with a timer at base ISO. But I have a fairly short return period if the K-1 is faulty.. so I'd rather put it through the ringer now and get it sorted on return or warranty than discover a problem later and eat the repair costs.
Me too Mee. I had a K-5, upgraded it to K-3 and now onto a K-1. I think of my K-1 as a super-sized K-5, without the lens choice. The performance is similar to the K-5, but the K-1 offers the greater cropability and 1:1 at a higher res, which is what I wanted. The k-5 was/is a great performer, especially when, like me you use your camera in "slow-mode" (ie base ISO/timer/MUP/tripod etc).

I was surprised at how similar the K-1's performance was to the K-3 in slow-mode in fact. Nigh on identical. This initially, disappointed me, but I've started working a little differently and adapting to the K-1's greater flexibility, especially as I can use ISO up to 800/1600, which has bought me a couple of stops over the k-3 - plus the important cropability. The move from the K-5 to the K-3 caused similar consternation, as the noise was initially "terrible" in comparison, but I adapted. Now the K-1 is back to the K-5 performance in slow-mode, but with some very useful extras ... and heavy lenses :-(

Guess you'll find the K-1 frees your technique up a little. I'm using mine (sometimes) in "walkabout" mode on a monopod. Still sloooow, but now I can use shutter speeds down to 1/30 or so safely, and with the extra ISO range I'm almost getting what I was getting with the slow-mode on the K-3, but with lots of usable extra pixels (potentially) ...
03-07-2017, 08:27 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,403
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Yes I've been there.. it is a rather large and winding thread... page 11 (IIRC) shows there was a dark band issue at the top of some sensors (or would that be bottom since the image is flipped?). My K-1 doesn't have that issue. It does seem to have the white dots though.. but there doesn't seem to be a hard rule on what is considered OK white dot level and what is considered BAD white dot level.

When I take a shot at 25600 in a dark setting and enable NR, LR removes the color noise pretty nicely and I'm left with the white dots. Hmmm..
I think we (Pentaxians in general) have been so conditioned over the years to think of FF as the Holy Grail that it's easy for the reality to not measure up to the fantasy.

FWIW, the K-1 crop, to me, looks significantly better than the K-5 II crop - about what I'd expect the difference between the 2 cameras to be.

It's the white dots thing that is freaking me out a bit IMO, if you have any doubts, exchange the camera.
03-07-2017, 09:06 AM - 1 Like   #22
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,293
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
Ever notice how interesting compelling images seem to have less apparent tech defects of any kind than the dull, mundane ones do?
Is it because people are looking at something other than 'pickles?
03-07-2017, 10:39 AM - 1 Like   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,995
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
The K-1's high ISO noise doesn't seem that better than my old K-5 II (crop) body
That is the price we have to pay for the high pixel sensor. The pixel size on K1 is about the same as on K5II, so it is not very surprising that K1 does not do better dramatically.
I do hope pentax releases a 24-MP FF camera....
Anyway, with the 36-mp sensor, you get a lot of details. apply NR to the image and review it at full screen model, not 100%, you will be happy with the result. Even viewing at 50%, the image should give you more details than K5II's image, and noise will not be as pronounced.

03-07-2017, 04:43 PM   #24
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,707
Original Poster
Thanks all for the constructive, supportive, and incitive thoughts shared. I think my K-1 is fine.

This evening I took the K-1 outside and took a few more shots. In decent light, and after processing my RAWs, I have difficulty determining my ISO 1600 shot from my test ISO 100 shot outside of viewing at 1:1.

And I think with printing the results would be even better.. the finer grain of the K-1, I suspect, might melt away a bit better on glossy prints?

I was for sure I saw tons of reviews, in the past, of FF bodies and high ISO compared to crop and the FF looked night+day better. Maybe I'm just spoiled with the K-5 II though..
03-07-2017, 05:29 PM   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,736
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
I think we (Pentaxians in general) have been so conditioned over the years to think of FF as the Holy Grail that it's easy for the reality to not measure up to the fantasy.

FWIW, the K-1 crop, to me, looks significantly better than the K-5 II crop - about what I'd expect the difference between the 2 cameras to be.

It's the white dots thing that is freaking me out a bit IMO, if you have any doubts, exchange the camera.
No, it is because the first thing that we do when we load an image on the computer is zoom to 100 percent. But that is a very different thing on a K5 and a K1. The first thing we should really do is print five images at, say, 16 by 10 inches at various isos and actually compare them. Because once you do that, you realize that a lot of the noisy pixels you see miraculously disappear in the process of printing. And the K1 images will look significantly better than the K5 images after about iso 800.
03-07-2017, 10:05 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 12,754
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Good summary.

---------- Post added 07-03-17 at 07:27 ----------


That's a lot of money, if you don't consider the life time of the camera system.
Frequent buyers of cheaper camera may actually spend more money overall.

Camera size is a valid argument, especially for the convenience of use, but smallest isn't better.
For me, a good sized camera is the camera that fit well in my hands for taking pictures, that's the case of the K3 and K1, but for example I hate using a camera like Olympus M43 Panasonic M43 because they don't have a good grip. The smallest camera I could handle would be of the size of an XT1, or the KP that is about the same size. Maybe ladies feel that M43 is the correct size for them.
I agree on 'horses for courses', BE.

For tele work, the K-1 comes with a built-in fifty percent penalty for reach. You can spend a lot on FF lenses just to get that back.

In good light, your comparison showed it will be very difficult to tell images taken with the K-3 and K-1 apart, but I do quite a bit of night shooting, and concerts also where the shutter speed has to remain high. The K-1's extra pixels can help me trade off ISO in making the final JPG.

I'll pay for the one stop difference in this kind of photography, I can understand others who won't.

Latin American musicians, K-1, Sigma 35mm Art:


Last edited by clackers; 03-07-2017 at 10:20 PM.
03-07-2017, 10:10 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 12,754
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
Oh the good old print vs screen debate.

So use the screen tab if you intend to compare one pixel from each sensor and use the print tab if you want to compare the whole sensor. Usually people use the whole sensor when taking photos and thus compare the print tab. But the best thing is of course to understand the difference and check both tabs.
Well, only the first tab has the whole sensor's data, Gimbal. That's what a Signal to Noise ratio is about, and it's what DxO tested.

The second tab has no data that DxO measured. It is not real world, so let's dispose of that notion.

It is a guess on what you might see in the JPEG, using only the number of pixels that could be downsampled, not the sensor size at all. I can show you the formula used if you like.

Last edited by clackers; 03-07-2017 at 10:22 PM.
03-07-2017, 11:32 PM - 1 Like   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,180
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I agree on 'horses for courses', BE.
I've never said what the K1 tells about Ricoh marketing choices, and I won't , because it would go too far ;-) But for me, the K1 was a revelation about a lot of things. Nevertheless, I still prefer and love the K1, but that's another story :-)
03-08-2017, 04:07 AM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,736
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Well, only the first tab has the whole sensor's data, Gimbal. That's what a Signal to Noise ratio is about, and it's what DxO tested.

The second tab has no data that DxO measured. It is not real world, so let's dispose of that notion.

It is a guess on what you might see in the JPEG, using only the number of pixels that could be downsampled, not the sensor size at all. I can show you the formula used if you like.
But I still think the question is what happens when you print at a given size or view at a given size. And the answer in my experience is that the K-1 outperforms the K5 significantly. This is so, either because you are binning the pixels of the K-1 which tends to average out the noise, or because you have to up sample the K5 image which tends to worsen its appearance. DXO Mark has chosen to compare images at a 8 megapixel standard "print" size, but I think there does need to be some sort of similar comparison output size, otherwise large megapixel cameras look worse than they really are and low megapixel cameras look better than they really are.
03-08-2017, 07:59 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,078
Yes, the print tab works and is what you should look at if you want to get a feeling of how images will compare from different sensors. Note that I wrote “how images will compare” and not pixels.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dot, dots, dslr, exposures, full frame, full-frame, ii, iso, issue, k-1, k-5, k1, k5, lenses, level, lot, money, noise, nr, pentax k-1, pixel, size, wall
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Expecting too much from my Sigma 17-50mm? Noggin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 11-06-2011 01:39 PM
Focus Question - Camera, Lenses or Expecting Too Much? mtngal Pentax K-5 11 02-15-2011 03:00 AM
Am I expecting too much? FHPhotographer Pentax DSLR Discussion 59 01-11-2011 07:50 PM
Out Of Focus - Am I expecting too much? seachunk2 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 28 03-02-2010 03:27 PM
Am I expecting too much out of an old lens? whelmed Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 02-11-2010 07:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top