[monochrome]

I agree that having the choice it a good thing. I would have expected that replacing the main board would be done only in a few cases and most K1 owner would go through sell and by a K1II new, with some price drop on the K1 making K1 a more affordable FF to more people in the market place.

If the Upgrade early adopters report a positive experience more people will follow. That seems to be consensus here. Execution in the first round is very important.

[tax]

Indeed there is a risk involved. Even for Ricoh to propose such option can turn out bad because there will inevitably be some bad stories. If it was me, my K1 works fine and I don't want to take the risk to skrew it up, so if I want a camera update, I'll sell the K1 and pay the difference for a K1 II brand new.

How can you be so sure that a brand new K-1 II will not have any issues from the get go? Isn't it more reasonable to upgrade tried and trusted existing K-1 instead of gambling and taking chances with a new one?

[peterh337]

"I'm willing to trust their knowledge over your skepticism"

I take it you are spending somebody else's 500 quid

Regarding compression, the raw files are, as stated, compressed losslessly. The problem is that lossless compression doesn't really do much on typical camera images. It works brilliantly on computer generated images which typically contain large areas of precisely constant colour (long runs of precisely identical consecutive pixels) and that - applies to video compression too - is incidentally why the 4K TV shop demos use mostly CGI video footage because even if played back at a "slow" bitrate like 100mbps (which is good for HD but rubbish for 4K) it still looks great and sells TVs

A typical camera image will contain very few runs of same data so lossless compression does almost nothing. Compress a typical raw file with pkzip (which is an excellent lossless comp tool) and you get maybe a 10% reduction. It will depend on the image - a lot of sky, or a lot of blue sea, will help a bit. But lossless really works only with CGI material. An image from Shrek will compress by probably 90%

Now throw in a bit of noise - always present, in any image - and the chances of it being losslessly compressible goes down even more.

[texandrews]

"I'm willing to trust their knowledge over your skepticism"

I take it you are spending somebody else's 500 quid

Regarding compression, the raw files are, as stated, compressed losslessly. The problem is that lossless compression doesn't really do much on typical camera images. It works brilliantly on computer generated images which typically contain large areas of precisely constant colour (long runs of precisely identical consecutive pixels) and that - applies to video compression too - is incidentally why the 4K TV shop demos use mostly CGI video footage because even if played back at a "slow" bitrate like 100mbps (which is good for HD but rubbish for 4K) it still looks great and sells TVs

A typical camera image will contain very few runs of same data so lossless compression does almost nothing. Compress a typical raw file with pkzip (which is an excellent lossless comp tool) and you get maybe a 10% reduction. It will depend on the image - a lot of sky, or a lot of blue sea, will help a bit. But lossless really works only with CGI material. An image from Shrek will compress by probably 90%

Now throw in a bit of noise - always present, in any image - and the chances of it being losslessly compressible goes down even more.

1. I'm using my money, FYI. I'll be an early-ish adopter (I have a schedule issue which means I can't send my camera until July)
2. Thank you for that explanation about compression. I had thought I was doing something wrong.

[slip]

I don't own the K1 but I have to say that I am disappointed that Pentax didn't totally rework the auto focus, so I am going to sit this one out as well. They claim some improvements but they did with the K3ii and we know that this was a baby step

Randy

[normhead]

I don't own the K1 but I have to say that I am disappointed that Pentax didn't totally rework the auto focus, so I am going to sit this one out as well. They claim some improvements but they did with the K3ii and we know that this was a baby step

Randy

Personally, I'd like a major upgrade, but I don't want to pay what it would cost.... or I'd have a D750 or something.

[texandrews]

I don't own the K1 but I have to say that I am disappointed that Pentax didn't totally rework the auto focus, so I am going to sit this one out as well. They claim some improvements but they did with the K3ii and we know that this was a baby step

Randy

To you and everyone else looking for (far) better autofocus from Pentax: watch that video with the guy from the home office. My takeaway is that it's not even in the pipeline, or so far in the future that they're not even discussing it at this time. They need a completely new module for this, and they don't have it. I got the feeling they were waiting for the next generation sensor to make significant improvements. Hence the chipping around the edges they are about to do with the K1mkII and the K1 board upgrade offer. They are trying to milk the most out of the tech they've got through tweaks.

For the record, Pentax AF is fine for me, haven't had a problem with it. It's more than fine for what I do. I'm more disappointed about video improvements, which are not coming. But with the new A7III, in a year or so (at Sony's faster new model rate) I will be able to easily get an end of production reduced price camera that will be great for video and decent for certain stills applications. I won't have to "lens-up" either, can make do with one zoom. I can stand to run 2 systems, if one is just for a specific purpose. I think it will be a long time before Pentax offers much better video. It's more in Sony's DNA.

[peterh337]

Worth a mention that not every DNG is compressed. This may not be relevant to Pentax whose DNGs vary in size



but e.g. the DNGs coming out of my Samsung S7 (Footej camera app) are all the same size so obviously no compression is taking place



Regarding focus, I find the K1 is just fine but it isn't that quick and there are better solutions for action work. The Sony A9 is amazing but it costs a fortune

Video is a tricky subject. I do a fair bit of it (video out of a light aircraft, with a specialised camera and mount) and while everybody is raving over 4K the reality is that there isn't anywhere to host the result without paying a fortune for hosting AND even then most people won't be able to play it because (a) the bare minimum for "quality" 4K is 100mbits/sec which is way above most peoples' internet speed and (b) to play 4K at a decent bitrate and with no artefacts you need an absolutely top end computer. Consequently almost all of the terabytes of 4K footage generated daily by the public is wasted. You watch it once and chuck it. Vimeo downsamples 4K to 22mbps, Youtube probably something similar, and such a low bitrate cripples the quality unless you pull all the tricks like a stabilised mount (which reduces the bitrate because large parts of the frame change slowly). And a stabilised mount for a DSLR costs another load of money and you aren't likely to want to walk around with it... The bottom line is that HD is fine and much more usable. What is needed is 50 or 60 frames/sec though, not just 25/30. 2K would be nice if a lot of editing is to be done (less quality loss) but few cameras support that.

[Kunzite]

Regarding compression, the raw files are, as stated, compressed losslessly. The problem is that lossless compression doesn't really do much on typical camera images. It works brilliantly on computer generated images which typically contain large areas of precisely constant colour (long runs of precisely identical consecutive pixels) and that - applies to video compression too - is incidentally why the 4K TV shop demos use mostly CGI video footage because even if played back at a "slow" bitrate like 100mbps (which is good for HD but rubbish for 4K) it still looks great and sells TVs

A typical camera image will contain very few runs of same data so lossless compression does almost nothing. Compress a typical raw file with pkzip (which is an excellent lossless comp tool) and you get maybe a 10% reduction. It will depend on the image - a lot of sky, or a lot of blue sea, will help a bit. But lossless really works only with CGI material. An image from Shrek will compress by probably 90%

Now throw in a bit of noise - always present, in any image - and the chances of it being losslessly compressible goes down even more.

Right. Especially a noisy image is hard to compress.
But, there is a gain - my RAW files are often less than 45MB, though they can get closer to 60MB. OTOH, an uncompressed (and not bit-packed) RAW would be over 72MB.
With the K-1's slow writes, I'd say it's significant.

[biz-engineer]

I'd have a D750 or something.

I'd have a D500, but if I do that I don't know where it will lead me. Truth, if I try and compare Sony A7III, Fuji X-H1 and my K1 gear, I don't feel like Pentax lags behind as much as it's being said (reality is, AFS of K1 is about as fast as Sony A7 III in the same conditions, and Fuji is significantly faster than Sony... AF evaluations are very subjective it seems) but I do feel that the Pentax gear is better built, too bad that Pentax has such bad reputation and does nothing to change it.

---------- Post added 18-03-18 at 13:32 ----------

Video is a tricky subject. I do a fair bit of it (video out of a light aircraft, with a specialised camera and mount) and while everybody is raving over 4K the reality is that there isn't anywhere to host the result without paying a fortune for hosting

For sharing , the networks don't have the capacity for generalized 4K. I recently upgraded to best in class computer, graphic card, with latest HDMI version and yes not issue to play 4K, but the network is the limitation. In the end, due to the storage space needed and bandwidth, it goes back down to high quality HD and the quality of the monitor/TV does matter more than 4K. Not having 4K isn't a big deal in a DSLR, good AF is much more useful to have it should be top prio for Pentax.

[peterh337]

People are evidently willing to pay for "convergence". The £1150 which people are willing to pay for the 256GB Iphone X is being paid because most of them don't use anything else for their personal IT (which is why they need 256GB).

If you go somewhere where you expect to take good stills, you might bring your K1. But since it doesn't do decent video (e.g. 1920x1080x60fps and 50-100mbps, with autofocus and exposure) you now have to bring some other movie camera. A smartphone won't do because they have various issues e.g. they over-saturate colours, and generally stabilisation isn't much good. I have a DJI stabilised mount for my S7 which works well (for about 20 minutes and then the battery dies ) but you still don't get anywhere near a DSLR-quality video, and the mount is yet another (very fragile) thing to carry around and keep charged.

And with so much commercial video footage now being done with DSLRs, that's a market which Pentax isn't getting.

Anyway I am sure Pentax is well aware of this, and just doesn't have the R&D resources to redesign the whole thing. They stick to what they are good at.

[Kerrowdown]

Hey there KD, long time, no chat

Aye thought one of us and left the planet...

It gets mighty dark up in those highlands, I hear

But how else could I get about unnoticed?

hand held Pixel shift if it works

I serious doubts about being able to hand hold long enough, to get for four exposures without any shake on my part.

That said, for my shooting styles... I think I've only PS once or twice anyway just to try it out.

[TerryL]

I just bought my K-1 in January, and looking forward to this Spring and Summer. So, I'm not getting the upgrade. The K-1 is a wonderful camera, and way more than I need. I prefer to invest in lenses.
Terry

[GMounk]

Just to update on how the autofocus is working for me. The focus acquisition appears to be faster now that I am taking pictures above 0 degrees Celsius - 32 degrees Fahrenheit rather than at -20 to -30 or colder like I was doing in December, January and February. So perhaps temperature has been a factor. I am still leaning towards updating the camera. I am very interested in the hand held pixel shift, because I kayak to some fairly remote places, and really don't want to bring a tripod along.

[sbh]

Does anyone know whether the K-1ii will clear the buffer faster?