[biz-engineer]

To be fair, the D850 is slightly better than K1 in the same conditions. Pixel shift doesn't compare because of the limitations that pixel shift implies. Stacking 4 images from a D850 would deliver about the same or even better than K1. D850 is slightly sharper than K1, not by much. Now, I agree with normhead, in terms of image quality, there is no difference worth $1K, the extra cost of D850 would be for the 4K video and faster burst mode.

That said, Canon and Nikon have the edge on choice of lenses. Recently I acquired a bunch of filters, and do so I found out that Canon and Nikon have kind of standardized the most common lenses around 77mm filter thread. On the other hand, the DFA28-105 filter thread is 62mm, the DFA24-70 is 82mm, the DFA70-200 is 77mm and the DFA150-450 is 86mm. Take Canon, from 24mm to 400mm filter thread is 77mm, great for any 100mm filter system, that's simple, 1 body, 3 lenses and 1 filter set, and you're DONE.

[leekil]

I wouldn't call this "wiping the floor"; the difference seems pretty small. And If you do a similar test with 1600 +2EV, the 850 might be a little better than the Pentax regarding color noise, due to the dual-gain design of the sensor.

[normhead]

To be fair, the D850 is slightly better than K1 in the same conditions.

Looking at the Imaging Resources charts I have not lue what you'e saying here. I couldn't even see a difference in resolution, which is near blasphemous give n the extra 6 MP in the pixel count. Even at 6400 ISO I couldn't see a difference.

I wouldn't call this "wiping the floor"; the difference seems pretty small. And If you do a similar test with 1600 +2EV, the 850 might be a little better than the Pentax regarding color noise, due to the dual-gain design of the sensor.

Given the price difference I'd say "wipes the floor." Why would you pay all that money for no additional IQ?

[Rondec]

To be fair, the D850 is slightly better than K1 in the same conditions. Pixel shift doesn't compare because of the limitations that pixel shift implies. Stacking 4 images from a D850 would deliver about the same or even better than K1. D850 is slightly sharper than K1, not by much. Now, I agree with normhead, in terms of image quality, there is no difference worth $1K, the extra cost of D850 would be for the 4K video and faster burst mode.

That said, Canon and Nikon have the edge on choice of lenses. Recently I acquired a bunch of filters, and do so I found out that Canon and Nikon have kind of standardized the most common lenses around 77mm filter thread. On the other hand, the DFA28-105 filter thread is 62mm, the DFA24-70 is 82mm, the DFA70-200 is 77mm and the DFA150-450 is 86mm. Take Canon, from 24mm to 400mm filter thread is 77mm, great for any 100mm filter system, that's simple, 1 body, 3 lenses and 1 filter set, and you're DONE.

I guess the question in my mind is at what iso and what print size do you think you would see a difference? Certainly we are delving deep into the world of pixel peeping here. My routine hope is that companies will focus more on improving actual image quality, which to me means better color depth, dynamic range, and high iso performance. Unfortunately, what seems to be easier is to increase frame rates and add 4K video.

There are plenty of photographers who like having 9 fps, I just don't happen to be one of them. If I get 9 frames of a landscape in a second I just have to delete 8 of them.

[savoche]

There are plenty of photographers who like having 9 fps

Oh, I would certainly like to have 9 fps. I just don't need it

Besides, that's what the K-3 is for, isn't it.

[normhead]

Agree when it comes to camera sensors. Disagree when it comes to lenses.

To my eye I do see a difference between expensive, premium lenses on my K1's and cheaper/older lenses. And the difference I'm speaking of isn't just sharpness and technical pixel peeping characteristics. It's also the rendering, bokeh, contrast, and other artistic characteristics that separate the OK lenses from the great ones.

And of course you are posting some examples?

[Rondec]

Oh, I would certainly like to have 9 fps. I just don't need it

Besides, that's what the K-3 is for, isn't it.

I guess so, but it already takes a long time to transfer 20 or 25 images from my memory cards to my computer for editing. I can't imagine if I had 60 or 70 45 megapixel images to transfer and then edit/delete. Half the time I have my K-1 in single shot mode.

[normhead]

I guess so, but it already takes a long time to transfer 20 or 25 images from my memory cards to my computer for editing. I can't imagine if I had 60 or 70 45 megapixel images to transfer and then edit/delete. Half the time I have my K-1 in single shot mode.

I'm not sure folks who have teased the 8 fps out of a K-3 think that 10 FPS should be a thing. I have sat in post and gone through 15 identical images, tossing only based on random choice, because there was no discernible difference. 8 FPS is one frame every .125s. 10 FPS is .1. Some people think that .025s makes a huge difference. Myself, I've been surprised how many times going back to the 4 FPS of the K-1 doesn't bother me. Most of the time my decisions now are based on whether I need the extra reach of the K-3.

Honestly, process a few 23 shot bursts with a K-3. See what you're getting. Much of the time the difference in what you get isn't worth the extra files you have to process. A lot of the time you get nothing special anyway. Nothing special is definitely better at 4 FPS.

I'd probably go for 9 FPS as part of an upgrade, but 7 FPS with focus confirmation turned on would be better.

[Rondec]

I'm not sure folks who have teased the 8 fps out of a K-3 think that 10 FPS should be a thing. I have sat in post and gone through 15 identical images, tossing only based on random choice, because there was no discernible difference. 8 FPS is one frame every .125s. 10 FPS is .1. Some people think that .025s makes a huge difference. Myself, I've been surprised how many times going back to the 4 FPS of the K-1 doesn't bother me. Most of the time my decisions now are based on whether I need the extra reach of the K-3.

Honestly, process a few 23 shot bursts with a K-3. See what you're getting. Much of the time the difference in what you get isn't worth the extra files you have to process. A lot of the time you get nothing special anyway. Nothing special is definitely better at 4 FPS.

I'd probably go for 9 FPS as part of an upgrade, but 7 FPS with focus confirmation turned on would be better.

My wife shoots weddings and she used to come home with a little over 2000 images between her and her second shooter. Now her goal is to decrease that as much as possible while still giving quality six or seven hundred images to the client.

There are still places where you need to shoot bursts. Doing family shots, say, you need to shoot a burst because a couple of the kids are bound to have their eyes closed the second you hit your shutter. Five or six frames for a given pose is usually enough to get one that isn't going to need a bunch of photoshopping to swap faces from other images.

But 9 fps is probably overkill unless you shoot sports.

[clickclick]

I find when chasing birds, the higher frame rate of my K3II captures things my K1 misses. An osprey taking off moves really fast. He's gone from perch to out of site in just a second or two. Kinda amazing. I was after some humming birds the other day, and was surprised I was hitting my buffer on a series of short bursts with the K1. Just strikes me as picking the right tool for the job and how you work.

At some level, the 49mm is almost a "standard" for at least older Pentax lenses, albeit that my newer * lenses etc. all are larger and different. The pain of multiple filter sizes goes away once you stop thinking about it and just buy them. Eating cold beans out of a can because you're broke is just a short term side effect I got over pretty quickly.

All that aside, the comparisons here with the Nikon D850 show how impressive the K1 is and how competitive it remains. Love this camera.

[Jeff Lopez]

The Hassy , the Fuji MF, and the A9 looking bad also compared to the K1,

[leekil]

Given the price difference I'd say "wipes the floor." Why would you pay all that money for no additional IQ?

OK, definitely a better value, but the original comment was only making an image quality comparison.

[savoche]

But 9 fps is probably overkill unless you shoot sports.

I do have a few, a very few, occasions where I have shot bursts (impalas fighting, lions chasing off hyena etc), but I don't know that I would have ended up with fewer "good" shots at 4 fps than I did at 8.

The one thing I do like with higher fps, though, is that it makes it possible to shoot bracketing/HDR hand-held. Then again, with the DR we have today that is hardly necessary.

But I still wouldn't mind

[ffking]

Originally posted by Rondec
But 9 fps is probably overkill unless you shoot sports.
I do have a few, a very few, occasions where I have shot bursts (impalas fighting, lions chasing off hyena etc), but I don't know that I would have ended up with fewer "good" shots at 4 fps than I did at 8.

The time I've used fast continuous shooting most is taking darter dragonflies coming in to land on their perch, where the magnification means that the dof is very narrow and the flight path unpredictable - invaluable there, with shutter speeds of 1/1250s or less, but seldom used otherwise.

[Chris Mak]

The Nikon D850 will have a BSI sensor very similar to the Sony A7RII. Having used the Sony A7R as well as the A7RII, I notice that the BSI sensor struggles in high contrast (outdoor) scenes, and although it does not actually blow the highlights sooner than the 36mp sensor, it does give you a lot of work with high contrast images. The Pentax K1 will do better here, I'm sure, and so it will also do better than the Nikon D850, although that camera has a native iso 64.

Reading this article below, it seems that the current FF BSI sensor uses silicon with a lesser well depth than the 36mp sensor. Perhaps this explains the BSI sensor's struggle with brightness in high contrast scenes. Although I should say that it responds very well to CO1's highlight recovery tool, and as I said, highlights are not that easily blown beyond repair. Also, color sensitivity and colordetail are a step up from the 36mp sensor. That is also explained in the link below: the BSI sensor has less crosstalk.

What is Sony?s Exmor Technology Anyway? | News | Imaging Center | FRAMOS

Chris