I have to say, before i got a K-1 I would have just said, "I always shoot at the lowest ISO possible so high ISO performance isn't really relevant to me."
Yet two nights ago I was out with the K-1 shooting mindlessly at 1600 ISO, which I would never do without a K-5 or K-3 and I like the images.
So seeing these comparisons just tells me, no SR, no pixel shift, not as good high ISO performance, I'd be taking my D850 back as well.
I have my k-3 that will give me more resolution in the area of the crop sensor than a D850, So for many images I really don't need a D850 for that. I depend on my K-1 for low light exposures as its at least a 2 stop advantage over my K-3. So where exactly would a D850 fit in? A compromise camera to replace both I guess. But what compriises. No WR. No SR, no Pixel Shift, 7 FPS instead of 8 on my K-3, Lower density pixels for birding. Way too many compromises compared to what i'm using and it costs more than my K-1 and K-3 combined. For me, it's just not acceptable.
After being convinced this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and thinking it might be my dream camera, I have to say... I was had. Good thing i didn't buy one. Well at it's price, buying one was never an issue. but it's still a good thing.
---------- Post added 12-04-17 at 11:30 AM ----------
Originally posted by TonyW My assumption was that he must compare raw otherwise it makes a nonsense out of testing. Resampling should help to disguise noise.
But comparisons should be properly studied - should the raw data be handled individually to get the best out of each image or should it be left as is SOOC. Attached a quick comparison without any intervention in post by me, sharpening default ACR. Nikon D850 reduced to match K1 pixel count long edge. If you were to just judge on this then the left image (850) shows more resolution than the centre (K1) but the right most image shows best resolution and lowest noise. D850 noise is mainly luminance whereas there is a lot more colour noise in the standard K1 image and the image appreciably softer.
Look at the area , over and beside the window in the PEF file. The PEF image is so much cleaner it's ridiculous. Twice the resolution for half the price. Funny how two people can look at the same images and come to such different conclusions.
Last edited by normhead; 12-04-2017 at 10:09 AM.