[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

KP is weird one. Just get it and try extremely long exposures. Results are as good if not better than K-1 mk1. No way it is only the new 24MP Sony crop sensor doing that. KP sensor is also in Fuji X-T20 which I had for few months last year and it is nowhere close with long exposures (very noisy after 30 seconds).

If its over 30 sec it very well maybe NR with longer shutter speeds we don't know what is being done
but under normal use most companies that are using DCG use NR at much higher iso and not using NR at iso in the past where you would find NR



I would not be surprised if the KP does not use NR until the higher iso as others are doing

---

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 04-21-2018 at 12:37 PM.

[reh321]

KP is weird one. Just get it and try extremely long exposures. Results are as good if not better than K-1 mk1. No way it is only the new 24MP Sony crop sensor doing that. KP sensor is also in Fuji X-T20 which I had for few months last year and it is nowhere close with long exposures (very noisy after 30 seconds).

Are you thinking that the 'accelerator' seems to work better on the KP than on the new K-1???

[Rondec]

I guess I don't understand the angst. The K-1 (original) doesn't have this chip and doesn't have noise reduction of any kind in RAW files. The K-1 II does do something in an attempt to clean up high-ish iso situations. Based on this, it kicks in after iso 400 and does smooth a bit of detail (not enough I would notice without a loupe, but still). So, I suppose in the end we have a choice. If it bothers you enough, there are still original K-1s for sale, actually for a lower price than for the K1 II. If you don't have killer noise reduction skills and aren't planning to print iso 800 shots at 1 meter and up, then the K-1 II may still be a reasonable option.

Even looking at these new samples, the differences are minimal and would not be noticed unless someone had two images to compare and really got down to the pixel level. When you come down to what makes a photo work -- light, subject, composition -- a little noise or slight lack of detail are not going to make or break most images.

[Gutta Perka]

With greatest respect - I take photos and printing A2 - also A2 panoramas.

Here - This is extreme pixel-piping.
My customers are satisfied but mostly my friends.

I have a feeling of what You want - hey - just buy on - there is always a new out there.

However what I'm doing today is far beyond what I ever had expected some years ago,
Whoever looks at the fur in the corner - it could be worse -ok - I respect the talk and worries.
My spectators for sure do not even understand and look for it...

I now know that my K3 gives me better results because I can carry it - so not with my heavy K1 with "super-duper" lenses. (COST- Weight also that is/was)
My old wardrobed Hasselblade and film is far behind - even less weight than K1.

Just now waiting for a super simple/lightweight K3 with less knobes - I'm easily pay a lot for that one . ( Lens-Opening- shutter-speed-Iso)
Selling my K1 - as it today is the trouble of an old MF.

Please - this is no offend!

(Do Yo remember Pentax MX and Kodachrome etc? But today's nano-technique should be used to improve that.)
Whatever - rethink - please.
Film 24x36 why - think? APS-C I think is today's ideal - better than the film-size thinking.

With all respect - why all this pixel peeping when we already have IT?

OK - I could instead ask You how large a printer You have, WHO are setting YOUR demands and who the spectators are looking at those prints.

---

Last edited by Gutta Perka; 04-21-2018 at 01:41 PM.

[awscreo]

With greatest respect - I take photos and printing A2 - also A2 panoramas.

Here - This is extreme pixel-piping.
My customers are satisfied but mostly my friends.

I have a feeling of what You want - hey - just buy on - there is always a new out there.

However what I'm doing today is far beyond what I ever had expected some years ago,
Whoever looks at the fur in the corner - it could be worse -ok - I respect the talk and worries.
My spectators for sure do not even understand and look for it...

I now know that my K3 gives me better results because I can carry it - so not with my heavy K1 with "super-duper" lenses. (COST- Weight also that is/was)
My old wardrobed Hasselblade and film is far behind - even less weight than K1.

Just now waiting for a super simple/lightweight K3 with less knobes - I'm easily pay a lot for that one . ( Lens-Opening- shutter-speed-Iso)
Selling my K1 - as it today is the trouble of an old MF.

Please - this is no offend!

(Do Yo remember Pentax MX and Kodachrome etc? But today's nano-technique should be used to improve that.)
Whatever - rethink - please.
Film 24x36 why - think? APS-C I think is today's ideal - better than the film-size thinking.

With all respect - why all this pixel peeping when we already have IT?

OK - I could instead ask You how large a printer You have, WHO are setting YOUR demands and who the spectators are looking at those prints.

With all due respect, there's some self projection going on.

Needs of one photographer to another are not the same, and if he requires his (fairly expensive) professional equipment to perform at a certain level, then that's what he needs for his work.

Plus if you read the entire thread, you'll see that there is something of interest that people found out about K-1 m2.

[stevebrot]

Just now waiting for a super simple/lightweight K3 with less knobes

Many of us have a similar wish, but given that the topic of the thread is technical performance, not heft and features, I will let this rabbit run down its own hole alone.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

With greatest respect - I take photos and printing A2 - also A2 panoramas.

Here - This is extreme pixel-piping.
My customers are satisfied but mostly my friends.
...
Whoever looks at the fur in the corner - it could be worse -ok - I respect the talk and worries.
My spectators for sure do not even understand and look for it...

In fairness, I can understand the OP's concern to some small degree...

My Hasselblad HV (Sony A99-based) uses Sony's lossy, compressed ARW format for RAW files - a travesty considering how capable the sensor and signal processing is (for its vintage). At 100% reproduction on my 17" laptop or 23" external monitors, very high contrast edges can show quite noticeable compression artefacts. At 50% reproduction, none of that is really visible, and on the very few photos I've printed (none at the A2 dimensions you're talking about), it's most certainly not visible. But I know it's there in the full size image, and that's a little annoying.

But I agree with you, this is extreme pixel-peeping, and viewers of the final output won't be looking for such issues as the OP describes, and as I've described above. By the time you get to 100% reproduction (or scaled to even higher levels), the typical viewing distance is highly unlikely to betray minor issues like this. Only the photographer him or herself can decide whether it really matters.

We still need to compare K-1 and K-1II images side-by-side before concluding there is any difference, however small. When we do, I'd also like to see some comparisons at very high ISO settings - 51,200 for instance - to see if the K-1II's output is actually better than can be achieved with the original K-1 and Lightroom (or similar)...

[maw]

I re-read a passage from Mr Takashi's statement, and it seems to me that the management of the image is explained very clearly, then everyone can give it weight.
and different meaning, the crux of the matter is:

I imagine two points that can create the problem (if taken for real), I can It is also wrong, but it is only a hypothesis, not a thesis, let alone a demonstration.


When Mr. Takashi Arai ''Ricoh'' says in the interview:


1. The Accelerator Unit first processes the output signal from the sensor, then transmits it to the PRIME IV.

I. The first statement is true, only if 'the accelerator unit processes the signal correctly' then the second statement may not be true 100%.


2. Because the signal for PRIME IV is already [less noisy than the original K-1]. Better signals in PRIME IV in K-1 II means that it can be optimized more specifically only to reduce noise.

II. The second statement is true, so the first condition is false.
And so beyond a certain threshold (yet to be verified) the noise is not reduced in the correct way or as you would expect.

Compared to K1 (which has a traditional way of processing with only the Prime IV).

Hoping that DxO Mark will do an accurate review as soon as possible.

[SteveinSLC]

It's a bit premature to speculate on this based only on the OP's experience, and without a fair amount of side to side comparison between multiple cameras and between the Mk1 and Mk2.

Some number of years ago, I had a summer job at an aerospace company that involved working on infrared CCD sensors to go into space. Because they were going up into space, there was no room for error or less than perfect sensors. We tested many samples using an oscilloscope that actually let us look at the noise levels as a waveform (at liquid nitrogen temperature, then with the best few at liquid helium).
There was indeed noticeable variation between theoretically similar copies of the same sensor. I'm sure there's at least some of the same variation in camera sensors today. So while the OP may be correct, and there may indeed be something going on, I wouldn't hang my hat on it without more separate tests.

[Gutta Perka]

In fairness, I can understand the OP's concern to some small degree...
..........

But I agree with you, this is extreme pixel-peeping, and viewers of the final output won't be looking for such issues as the OP describes, and as I've described above. By the time you get to 100% reproduction (or scaled to even higher levels), the typical viewing distance is highly unlikely to betray minor issues like this. Only the photographer him or herself can decide whether it really matters.

We still need to compare K-1 and K-1II images side-by-side before concluding there is any difference, however small. When we do, I'd also like to see some comparisons at very high ISO settings - 51,200 for instance - to see if the K-1II's output is actually better than can be achieved with the original K-1 and Lightroom (or similar)...

I'm just as interested in this thread as most others here - just felt it got just a little bit "anal" (sorry for that one...) - just missed the the distance or bigger frame - you know those three steps back to see.

We have great instruments - so great that that my K1-outfit overpower (by weigt and addition costs) what I can do with my K3. In a way too much.
I use my K1 outfit compared to my K3 outfit just about 10% - because I bought it. And yes it's a really great outfit for me - especially for around 70mm and under. Over that I in a way get more bang for the pixels.
Right used my prints from either might differ just a bit - but mostly not for an even used spectator. (I may not say so - but its about skill and post processing - as usual...)

Overkill costs - money, weight, portability, readiness. However I love overkill but have no sherpas or great doners.

I hope for everyone here that the second firmware for K1II will crisp the fure and there will be standing ovations.
I'll keep K1 - as is without upgrade and sherpas.

(Please mind my irony about pixel-peeping... and for those thinking I'm firing - my apologies.)

As with Rolls-Roys - there is more power enough.
Minimum distance to a print is the length of it's diagonal. If someone is getting closer - have patience.( It might be a pixel-peeper...)

[maw]

It's a bit premature to speculate on this based only on the OP's experience, and without a fair amount of side to side comparison between multiple cameras and between the Mk1 and Mk2.

Mine is or wants to be a simple logical deduction, even by virtue of the first samples provided and not a statement without comparable data,
I think that even after all comparisons and tests carried out, there will always be a little disbelief about the data provided between one test and another, it is scepticism that reigns.
On the other hand, the whole discussion arises from a simple question of hair, it's really funny with Pentax who slowly seems to be returning to his past always as a great innovator
and never banal or presumptuous.

I wish long life to Pentax/Ricoh and all Pentaxians.

[Kunzite]

I cannot find the area which was cropped in the underexposed ISO100 sample; I just cannot identify it among all that fur. So I cannot do the comparison using my own software. The software obviously applied its own processing, which likely depend on the ISO (NR, sharpening...)
Is the RAW available?

The problem is, by comparing the ISO100 with the ISO800 sample (the ones provided in that archive), disabling all types of sharpening in Silkypix I cannot see any detail loss in the ISO800 sample. So I'm suspecting it's Lightroom rather than the camera.
If there is an issue I want to know; but if there isn't, I'd rather not unnecessarily avoid the upgrade.

By the way, I have to raise the image by about 1EV to match the RAW with the cropped JPEG... ISO 800 is thus ISO 1600.

[reh321]

With all due respect, there's some self projection going on.

Needs of one photographer to another are not the same, and if he requires his (fairly expensive) professional equipment to perform at a certain level, then that's what he needs for his work.

Plus if you read the entire thread, you'll see that there is something of interest that people found out about K-1 m2.

The OP is an artist who, like many of us {artists and others like me} has developed a style which suits him. If I understand correctly, he starts off by 'under exposing' the scene, dealing with both exposure and noise PP. That is great for him and for most cameras. However, an artist I respect starts off with an opposite approach - he claims that underexposure, not high ISO, is the greatest source of noise, so he uses 'ETTR' {Exposure To The Right}, initially pushing the 'raw' histogram as far to the right as the system can handle, and then 'corrects' exposure in PP; he claims that ETTR gives him an optimal view of shadows and other dark areas. If this second artist is correct, then the OP is creating the worst possible scenario for the K-1 mk ii, creating maximum stress for a system specifically designed to combat noise. In short, the K-1 mk ii, a system designed to minimize noise in normally exposed images, may simply not be the right camera for his particular style.

But, as others have stated before me, this provides an area for further investigation - right now, we don't know anything for certain.

[Kunzite]

Of course ETTR will give you most detail and less noise. The problem is that you must be careful not to get into overexposure.

[MJKoski]

@Kunzite: Why would you compare cropped jpg images? I mentioned that you shall have the DNG files. I am 250km away from my offline file storage at the moment.

Just load those two to irfanview or some such editor and cycle them. It does not require 100% perfect eyesight to see differences. Just a device which shows actual pixels. Like standard desktop monitor. Not retina or cellphone screen.