[Fcsnt54]

I own both and there are some instances in which the K1, shooting with PS, delivers perceivably sharper looking images, especially if moire patterns are an issue. PS pretty much eliminates moire, which is certainly an issue with the Canon 50 meg FF bodies.

that might be the case with certain scenes when using pixel shift, but it is still too much of a hassle processing the pixel shifted images. I know you can use raw therapee which masks the areas with movements, but at that point it takes away from some of the benefits of using pixel shift. There is also the idea that you must use a tripod. Don't get me wrong I do like using the k-1 but to say that it is the ultimate system under 10K is a little much. where are the Tilt shift lenses, where are the less expensive wide and telephoto zooms, even some of the flashes are missing, 3rd party support is lacking. Also there is the claim that its better then the z, but even that can be a little much different tool for different purposes.

[Rondec]

that might be the case with certain scenes when using pixel shift, but it is still too much of a hassle processing the pixel shifted images. I know you can use raw therapee which masks the areas with movements, but at that point it takes away from some of the benefits of using pixel shift. There is also the idea that you must use a tripod. Don't get me wrong I do like using the k-1 but to say that it is the ultimate system under 10K is a little much. where are the Tilt shift lenses, where are the less expensive wide and telephoto zooms, even some of the flashes are missing, 3rd party support is lacking. Also there is the claim that its better then the z, but even that can be a little much different tool for different purposes.

I won't argue with you that other systems are better, I would only say that pixel shift is very usable and that if you spend a little time post processing, it isn't a big deal to get a very usable tiff file that has excellent motion correction. It definitely adds to the detail, sharpness and color depth of an image. Does it make it better than a 645z image? Probably depends on the image. There are very few images that are really made or broken based on those features. It is more about subject, lighting and composition to me...

[hjoseph7]

Canon is led by grumpy old men that refuse to change.

[CDW]

.

Why do I need to push that much in post an image? For landscape (althrough I'm not a big fan of landscape photography) all my friends are using filters, even the ones with Sony or Nikon for the exact the same reason: they don't want to push too much in post production the file. For portaits, which I love to take, I don't need dynamic range. It's far more important the composition and the attitude of the model.

That being said, Canon has done a stupid thing with 6D Mark II (if the upcomming test shows that the dynamic range is virtualy the same as the one from 6D) and I'm saying this as a Canon shooter. 5D Mark IV has a very good dynamic range and that's why is strange what Canon has done wih 6D Mark II.

I would guess that the majority of Pentax owners shoot landscapes, nature or travel vs portraiture and weddings. I think that has been true from Pentax medium format film days. The fact is, unless the contrast in a scene is extreme, with almost five stops of shadow push available with SONY FF and MF sensors, it's pretty easy to eliminate the need for split density filters, which are almost always visually obvious in their use. Post skills are not that difficult to learn and implement efficiently.

As for Canon, as much as I love their printers and customer service, it's pretty laughable that most of their entry and mid level systems have dynamic range no better than Olympus or Panasonic m4/3s bodies, not to mention being left in the dust by Pentax, Nikon and SONY.

[Dan Rentea]

As for Canon, as much as I love their printers and customer service, it's pretty laughable that most of their entry and mid level systems have dynamic range no better than Olympus or Panasonic m4/3s bodies, not to mention being left in the dust by Pentax, Nikon and SONY.

In the studio, with studio lights and modifiers, 5DsR can't be beaten by K1 in terms of sharpness and details. And this is a fact. K1 for landscape can't be beaten for the moment by any other company because it's dynamic range, pixel shift, astrotracer, etc. 5D Mark IV is considered the best all around camera and in terms of image quality is not far from K1 at all, despite what some Pentax user are saying. You have to shoot with both cameras instead of looking on graphic charts. I've shoot both and K1 has a slightly edge in terms of image quality but 5D Mark IV is a lot more responsive and a lot more faster. Regarding 5D Mark IV dynamic range, it has 13.6Evs vs Sony A7R II 13.9Evs. Do you think that in practice you can spot a difference when you push the shadows? Even compared to K1 at events, do you actually belive that ISO800 from K1 looks like ISO100 from 5D Mark IV as someone mentioned above?

I absolutely agree with you regarding Canon entry level cameras. They suck big time.

[Rondec]

In the studio, with studio lights and modifiers, 5DsR can't be beaten by K1 in terms of sharpness and details. And this is a fact. K1 for landscape can't be beaten for the moment by any other company because it's dynamic range, pixel shift, astrotracer, etc. 5D Mark IV is considered the best all around camera and in terms of image quality is not far from K1 at all, despite what some Pentax user are saying. You have to shoot with both cameras instead of looking on graphic charts. I've shoot both and K1 has a slightly edge in terms of image quality but 5D Mark IV is a lot more responsive and a lot more faster. Regarding 5D Mark IV dynamic range, it has 13.6Evs vs Sony A7R II 13.9Evs. Do you think that in practice you can spot a difference when you push the shadows? Even compared to K1 at events, do you actually belive that ISO800 from K1 looks like ISO100 from 5D Mark IV as someone mentioned above?

I absolutely agree with you regarding Canon entry level cameras. They suck big time.

Regardless, it is telling that the K-1 (priced at 1900 in the US) is being compared to cameras priced at 3000 and more. Pentax needs to work on their lens line up and auto focus speed, but if you look at the graphs, the K-1 in terms of sensor performance compares well to any camera on the market.

I know you aren't into landscape, but for those of us who are, the K-1 is a great and relatively inexpensive option. The 6D Mk II, which is what this thread is about, wouldn't be.

[Dan Rentea]

Regardless, it is telling that the K-1 (priced at 1900 in the US) is being compared to cameras priced at 3000 and more. Pentax needs to work on their lens line up and auto focus speed, but if you look at the graphs, the K-1 in terms of sensor performance compares well to any camera on the market.

I know you aren't into landscape, but for those of us who are, the K-1 is a great and relatively inexpensive option. The 6D Mk II, which is what this thread is about, wouldn't be.

As I said on many ocasions, each and everyone talks from his point of view and based on his own photography area: landscape, action, portraits, street, product, etc. I never said that 6D Mark II is in the same league with K1 (except maybe when comes to af and video) and I don't even understand why people compare these 2 cameras. Why they do that, because of the similar price? Canon has a lot of full frame cameras, sorted on categories. Pentax has only one and competes with other brands mostly on landscape photography due to it's sensor and the landscape dedicated features. But some people from this forum live with the impression that K1 is better than Nikon, Canon, Sony at everything, which is absurd. Some people even say that K1 is better than A9, D5, 1Dx Mark II due to the image quality. But who needs 36mp and 4fps with slow as a mule buffer for sports? Only the ones who shoots for pleasure.

You say that your wife is into weddings. Give her for a week a 5D Mark IV and then ask her to give you her opinion compared to K1. Or give her a D750 for a week to shoot weddings with it. Are those 2 cameras worth 2.500 - 3.000 $? It is a question of which someone could answer after he shoots side by side with them, but for money, not for pleasure. I have a few friends with K1 and I know the limitations of the camera as well as I know it's strainghts. For a landscape shooter, 5D Mark IV probably isn't worthing 2.000$. For a wedding shooter it probably does. This doesn't mean that I can't shoot weddings with K1. It means that for a lot people an extra 1.000 $ can make their job easier for the next 3-5 years.

Yes, 6D Mark II is overpriced, but so would be K1 if Pentax would have to cover:
- marketing costs
- a lot of international events (where Nikon, Canon, Sony spend a lot of money)
- service centers costs all over the world
- video area
- autofocus performance
- etc.

Is the image quality better on K1 compared to 6D Mark II? No one will argue that. Why? Because I don't compare an entry level camera with a pro level camera.

You want to compare the image quality of K1 with 5DsR in the studio? K1 will lose this bet. 5DsR would lose the bet if you shoot landscape in a high dynamic situation. Would 6D Mark II gives me more keeper images if I would have to go and shoot some BIF or sports? Probably yes due to it's 6.5fps, faster buffer clearing and 45 af points, all cross type with 27 of them compatible to f8 lenses + tc. With K1 I will end up with the best image in terms of IQ, but with 6D Mark II i will end up with more images to choose from and because of that, I will end up with the best image in terms of composition. It's all about needs in the end.

[Rondec]

As I said on many ocasions, each and everyone talks from his point of view and based on his own photography area: landscape, action, portraits, street, product, etc. I never said that 6D Mark II is in the same league with K1 (except maybe when comes to af and video) and I don't even understand why people compare these 2 cameras. Why they do that, because of the similar price? Canon has a lot of full frame cameras, sorted on categories. Pentax has only one and competes with other brands mostly on landscape photography due to it's sensor and the landscape dedicated features. But some people from this forum live with the impression that K1 is better than Nikon, Canon, Sony at everything, which is absurd. Some people even say that K1 is better than A9, D5, 1Dx Mark II due to the image quality. But who needs 36mp and 4fps with slow as a mule buffer for sports? Only the ones who shoots for pleasure.

You say that your wife is into weddings. Give her for a week a 5D Mark IV and then ask her to give you her opinion compared to K1. Or give her a D750 for a week to shoot weddings with it. Are those 2 cameras worth 2.500 - 3.000 $? It is a question of which someone could answer after he shoots side by side with them, but for money, not for pleasure. I have a few friends with K1 and I know the limitations of the camera as well as I know it's strainghts. For a landscape shooter, 5D Mark IV probably isn't worthing 2.000$. For a wedding shooter it probably does. This doesn't mean that I can't shoot weddings with K1. It means that for a lot people an extra 1.000 $ can make their job easier for the next 3-5 years.

Yes, 6D Mark II is overpriced, but so would be K1 if Pentax would have to cover:
- marketing costs
- a lot of international events (where Nikon, Canon, Sony spend a lot of money)
- service centers costs all over the world
- video area
- autofocus performance
- etc.

Is the image quality better on K1 compared to 6D Mark II? No one will argue that. Why? Because I don't compare an entry level camera with a pro level camera.

You want to compare the image quality of K1 with 5DsR in the studio? K1 will lose this bet. 5DsR would lose the bet if you shoot landscape in a high dynamic situation. Would 6D Mark II gives me more keeper images if I would have to go and shoot some BIF or sports? Probably yes due to it's 6.5fps, faster buffer clearing and 45 af points, all cross type with 27 of them compatible to f8 lenses + tc. With K1 I will end up with the best image in terms of IQ, but with 6D Mark II i will end up with more images to choose from and because of that, I will end up with the best image in terms of composition. It's all about needs in the end.

I guess as long as you have decent light, you are correct. But honestly, if I am going to shoot BIF or sports, I would prefer to have a D500 than a 6D II any day of the week. Full frame is of minimal advantage here unless it is going to give you a sizable boost in high iso performance and that's exactly what the 6D II doesn't do.

As far as comparison between the K-1 and the 6D MK II, I would say that they are priced similarly enough (at least in the US market) that they are targeted at the same demographic. The 6D II is actually a little more expensive right now due to the newness of it.

People act as though shooting weddings is challenging from an auto focus and buffer standpoint, but generally speaking it isn't and I haven't heard my wife complain about those things. She really isn't a tech head (I am much more) and as long as she gets good images that she can process the way she wants, she is fine. I'm sure she would be OK with a D750 or 6D for that matter, because she just isn't concerned with specifications.

[Dan Rentea]

I guess as long as you have decent light, you are correct. But honestly, if I am going to shoot BIF or sports, I would prefer to have a D500 than a 6D II any day of the week. Full frame is of minimal advantage here unless it is going to give you a sizable boost in high iso performance and that's exactly what the 6D II doesn't do.

As far as comparison between the K-1 and the 6D MK II, I would say that they are priced similarly enough (at least in the US market) that they are targeted at the same demographic. The 6D II is actually a little more expensive right now due to the newness of it.

People act as though shooting weddings is challenging from an auto focus and buffer standpoint, but generally speaking it isn't and I haven't heard my wife complain about those things. She really isn't a tech head (I am much more) and as long as she gets good images that she can process the way she wants, she is fine. I'm sure she would be OK with a D750 or 6D for that matter, because she just isn't concerned with specifications.

I'm not into specs or graphic tests either. In fact, I hate them. If you compare K1 with 6D Mark II only for the similar price, then maybe that's why K1 is not gaining popularity. It was kind of popular for 5-7 months when came out. It would have stayed popular if Ricoh would have released at least 2 or 3 more lenses. But we don't even know when a new lens will be released. We know it's on the roadmap... If everybody compares K1 to 6D Mark II than maybe that's why people outside Pentax world think that K1 it's an entry level camera due to it's price.

Of course that if we have choices no one is going to buy 6D Mark II for sports. And that is why Canon, Nikon and Sony gives you options (D500/D5, 7D Mark II/1Dx Mark II, A9) and Pentax doesn't despite that some people will argue even that. Some Pentaxians compare K1 to every new camera released and always wins. I'm sure D850 will not stand a chance to K1 according to some.

As I said, I also wouldn't have any problem in shooting a wedding with K1. It is a very good camera. But I also know after shooting with K1 and a few other cameras from Canon and Nikon that 5D Mark IV or D750 would make my work easier on a wedding. You can't complain about the performance of K1 at a wedding if you haven't shoot with a camera from competition, in this case 5D Mark IV and not 6D Mark II. When you see that 5D Mark IV grabs focus while K1 waits an extra split of a second like it is trying to be sure that it has the focus locked on the right person, when 5D Mark IV loks focus on a dancing floor (in Romania we dance a lot at weddings ) while K1 esitates from time to time... It is confortable to know that the camera reacts instantly when you need it and that it delivers each and every time. One or two missed shots can or can't be reproduced at a wedding.

[Rondec]

The K-1 with a lens like the DFA *70-200 does fine with regard to auto focus. Issues with regard to locking focus are much overstated, in my opinion. Other cameras track better, but even there, a K-1 does decently. The biggest issue is really the fact that if you are shooting with two memory cards, the buffer does take a long time to clear. But the 6D doesn't offer two memory cards, I don't think. I'm sure the 5D IV would do better, but then so would a D5 and the list can go on.

We know that every camera is a compromise. The question is what compromise works best for an individual photographer. Based on the lenses we own, shooting with a K-1 was the best option and there aren't a significant number of shots missed, even in dark settings. Certainly the clients have never complained and that is probably the most important thing.

[micromacro]

Regardless, it is telling that the K-1 (priced at 1900 in the US) is being compared to cameras priced at 3000 and more. Pentax needs to work on their lens line up and auto focus speed, but if you look at the graphs, the K-1 in terms of sensor performance compares well to any camera on the market.

I know you aren't into landscape, but for those of us who are, the K-1 is a great and relatively inexpensive option. The 6D Mk II, which is what this thread is about, wouldn't be.

This. For the price K-1 offers more than Canon.

[Dan Rentea]

The K-1 with a lens like the DFA *70-200 does fine with regard to auto focus. Issues with regard to locking focus are much overstated, in my opinion.

I never said it's bad. The af-s it's accurate, but it needs a little extra second to lock focus in some occasions.

Other cameras track better, but even there, a K-1 does decently.

It seems so, althrough I wasn't very much interested in testing the af-c because each and every time I had a chance to play with K1 I had a portrait shooting. Maybe I'll have a chance to test it on some BIF.

The biggest issue is really the fact that if you are shooting with two memory cards, the buffer does take a long time to clear. But the 6D doesn't offer two memory cards, I don't think. I'm sure the 5D IV would do better, but then so would a D5 and the list can go on.

Yes, I noticed the buffer clearing issue also. But I don't take more than 3-5 images on a burst so it's not such a big deal. Canon was stupid by not adding a second memory card slot on 6D Mark II since mirrorless cameras tend to include in their cameras the second memory card slot.

Certainly the clients have never complained and that is probably the most important thing.

100% agree

[NickyJ3257]

In the studio, with studio lights and modifiers, 5DsR can't be beaten by K1 in terms of sharpness and details. And this is a fact. K1 for landscape can't be beaten for the moment by any other company because it's dynamic range, pixel shift, astrotracer, etc. 5D Mark IV is considered the best all around camera and in terms of image quality is not far from K1 at all, despite what some Pentax user are saying. You have to shoot with both cameras instead of looking on graphic charts. I've shoot both and K1 has a slightly edge in terms of image quality but 5D Mark IV is a lot more responsive and a lot more faster. Regarding 5D Mark IV dynamic range, it has 13.6Evs vs Sony A7R II 13.9Evs. Do you think that in practice you can spot a difference when you push the shadows? Even compared to K1 at events, do you actually belive that ISO800 from K1 looks like ISO100 from 5D Mark IV as someone mentioned above?

I absolutely agree with you regarding Canon entry level cameras. They suck big time.

1. It’s just “faster” not “more faster”
2. You’re completely right. If you look at award winning images and cameras used by pro photojournalist, the canon 5d is by far the most used camera

[stevebrot]

1. It’s just “faster” not “more faster”
2. You’re completely right. If you look at award winning images and cameras used by pro photojournalist, the canon 5d is by far the most used camera

Welcome to the Pentax Forums!

Too bad this is a zombie thread.


Steve

[DeadJohn]

1. It’s just “faster” not “more faster”
2. You’re completely right. If you look at award winning images and cameras used by pro photojournalists, the cCanon 5dD is by far the most used camera.

Welcome to PF. Other people will be more welcoming if you don't try to be the grammar police.

I marked up your post. See how annoying it is