[Not a Number]

I'm looking forward to a K-1 vs K-1 II comparison, too.

Right, the same effects may be there in the K-1, just nobody was looking for them before.

[docmaas]

Is this what we are talking about? Both images processed in Iridient with no changes except a bump to +3 in exp for the iso 800 image. The crops viewed in FastStone viewer at 200%. Note the smoothness in the iso 800 image. Is that just iso 800 quality? The histograms are different in the 0-64 range but look very similar from there on. Again processed with Iridient.

I've been watching this thread because I am thinking of buying the K-1 ii. I previously owned the K-1 and thought it to be an excellent camera particularly with pixel shift but owning sony and sigma on both of which I could share lenses I sold the K-1. Now looking again with the hope that dynamic pixel shift will be an effective alternative.

Mike

[maw]

The crops viewed in FastStone viewer at 200%. Note the smoothness in the iso 800 image.

800 is better than 100 iso, or very close? Has less chrominance noise.

[docmaas]

800 is better than 100 iso, or very close? Has less chrominance noise.

It does look that way but it is also less detailed and I wonder if that is what the OP is talking about. There are noticeable differences in detail elsewhere in the image as well with the iso 800 losing to the iso 100 but none that would make the 800 image a reject.

Mike

[stevebrot]

If the file is DNG then in ACR you should be able to switch between Camera Profiles. I prefer the embedded profile.

Unless the camera is not yet supported in the current version of ACR. The K-1II fits that description at present.


Steve

[Not a Number]

DCU 5.8.1 is now available on the Ricoh Japan site for download.

Has the Raw file for the dead rabbit picture been posted?

Digital Camera Utility 5 Update for Windows : Software Downloads | RICOH IMAGING
Digital Camera Utility 5 Update for Macintosh : Software Downloads | RICOH IMAGING

[HarisF1]

It may be an idea to snap a shot with both K-1 models under controlled lighting and conditions. If there's anything to worry about then it will be more than evident.

[Kunzite]

It may be an idea to snap a shot with both K-1 models under controlled lighting and conditions. If there's anything to worry about then it will be more than evident.

Same for a gain.

[Class A]

The colour noise reduction in Lightroom 6 is sooo good even at high ISO settings, and Darktable doesn't allow manual cushion distortion correction. Both of these are quite a big deal for me, and if it weren't for that, I would love to retire Lightroom

Have you tried an evaluation copy of Capture One?

[Class A]

After looking at the Raw file I can see that any detail above a certain size has some NR done to it in the iso 800 shot I would even say that there is some sharping being done to smaller detail also in that iso 800 shot.

I think everyone commenting on RAW files should specify which converter they are using and whether they checked that the default settings for various ISO settings are the same. In the case of ACR (Adobe Camera RAW, which is used in both Photoshop and Lightroom) there are likely manipulations going on under the hood, i.e., there will be some processing even if the sliders indicate a neutral setting.

Having looked at the RAW conversions presented, I'd say this discussion is one of "splitting hairs" (can't argue with that can you? ).
The differences are rather subtle and it isn't at all clear to me that the low ISO shots are preferable. They show more colour artifacts and have quite a "digital" look about them with some hairs not being fully connected. If given the choice between the pushed low ISO image and the high ISO image, I'd say the high ISO image would be a better basis to start from.

On the one hand, I'm a proponent of a "hands off" approach to RAW data out of camera. On the other hand, I don't think there is any consumer camera that doesn't massage the RAW data in one way or another to make it look more presentable. In that light, one would have to have very little worries in the world in order to view the nature of the K-1 II's RAW images as a problem. To justify respective criticism, in my opinion, there would have to be a demonstration that files that haven't been "tampered" with allow a better result. So unless someone shows how they can use a K-1 plus respective RAW converter settings to produce a result that is superior to the K-1 II's output, I don't even see as much as a breeze in a tea cup.

[Rondec]

It is really hard for me to take a discussion seriously in which people post 200 percent crops and try to analyze the relatively minor differences between them. Beyond that, your results should be better shot at iso 100 than at iso 800, even if you are pushing the image quite a bit -- you have a lot more dynamic range available at iso 100 and will retain more highlights and with a camera like the K-1 it is not a problem to push the shadows two or three stops. When I am shooting landscapes, I typically underexpose by one or two stops so as to make certain I don't blow out the highlights. I can do this at iso 100, if I do it and am shooting at iso 800, I will introduce a bunch of noise into the image that could be problematic.

In the end, I am going to state again that I don't see enough difference for people buy one camera versus the other (K-1 versus K-1 II). Particularly in a very large print, people are just not going to be focused on whether there is a little bit of smoothing versus a tiny bit of noise in the shadowed areas. And, if you are going to be making prints that are above 1 meter on a side with the K-1, you had best be certain you are shooting at iso 100 and using pixel shift if you possibly can. No camera is as good at iso 800 as it is at iso 100 and the results will tend to decline from there -- particularly with regard to decreased levels of shadow detail (less dynamic range). I know the OP knows this, I just think that he thought that the KP was a revelation with regard to high iso shooting and has not found the K-1 II to be as much of a step forward in that regard.

[Kunzite]

I don't think we would like "hands off" RAWs very much, if at all. There are many sources of noise in the camera, and some of them can be identified and compensated for - but not later, in software. At least that's my understanding.
If it can be done without removing detail...

---------- Post added 23-04-18 at 12:56 PM ----------

Beyond that, your results should be better shot at iso 100 than at iso 800, even if you are pushing the image quite a bit -- you have a lot more dynamic range available at iso 100 and will retain more highlights and with a camera like the K-1 it is not a problem to push the shadows two or three stops.

From what I see in these samples, the ISO 800 image is very slightly better.

[Rico]

Unless the camera is not yet supported in the current version of ACR. The K-1II fits that description at present.


Steve

Steve I am using Adobe CS4 which does not support or have camera profiles for the K-1 but I can still switch the camera profile from Adobe Standard to the embedded camera profile in ACR by shooting in DNG. As long as you shoot DNG ACR will recognize the unsupported camera. It is when you shoot PEF with an unsupported camera is when ACR has a problem working the files.

One reason I brought this up is in the Dynamic Pixel Shift thread someone posted this link to DPReview post of someone comparing Nightscape abilities of the K-1II and Canon 5D. Their conclusion even though the K-1II had superior sharpness etc the person concluded the 5D was better because the Canon handled the red traffic lights better. One reason this person thought the K-1II didn't handle the reds as well could easily be due to using the wrong camera profile. There is a huge difference to how the red channel is handled switching from the embedded camera profile and the Adobe Standard profile. This is a rather ridiculous conclusion anyway as you can correct color in pp but you can not correct sharpness to match pixel-shift.

[leekil]

I do actually see what the OP's talking about. Find the "O-shape" of fur, two thirds up on the right hand side of the image, and closely examine both photos. The top photo (ISO 100 pushed) shows just a tiny bit more detail, and I don't think that's the illusion that greater noise / graininess sometimes produces (although it could be). I genuinely can see a tiny bit more detail in the top photo. That said, it is extremely minor. For me personally, this wouldn't be concerning in the slightest, but that's just me

But also, Kunzite said there was a slightly higher level of sharpening applied to the 100 ISO image; that could potentially make the difference if it is that subtle.

[stevebrot]

Steve I am using Adobe CS4 which does not support or have camera profiles for the K-1 but I can still switch the camera profile from Adobe Standard to the embedded camera profile in ACR by shooting in DNG.

There are multiple ways for the .dcp files for a new model to make their way into your computer. The most common is through the Adobe DNG Converter. Having the .dcp will provide that profile even for older versions of ACR. If you have Adobe Standard for K-1 DNG, that means you have the appropriate .dcp file on your system. For example, I am running Lightroom 5.7 which does not offer K-1 support, but I do have the .dcp files from the current version DNG Converter on my system. As a result, I have K-1 other than "embedded" profile support for Lightroom for that camera. The same is not true for the K-1II because Adobe has not written an Adobe Standard for that camera yet. You can verify by downloading one of the OP's K-1II DNG files and see what profiles are available.

Due to the lack of profiles (at least at present) other than the embedded version from Ricoh/Pentax, it may be that the embedded profile is deficient in red rendering, but unlikely that the user in the article had any other options.


Steve