[Kunzite]

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.

Here is the ISO 100 pushed with the same sharpening settings (outline emphasis 27, ringing artifact ctrl 12, bokeh preservation 0 - the ISO 800's defaults).
The ISO 800 is here: K-1 MK2 - Unhappy with results at moderate ISO settings - Page 12 - PentaxForums.com

Attached Images

 

[BigMackCam]

Here is the ISO 100 pushed with the same sharpening settings (outline emphasis 27, ringing artifact ctrl 12, bokeh preservation 0 - the ISO 800's defaults).
The ISO 800 is here: K-1 MK2 - Unhappy with results at moderate ISO settings - Page 12 - PentaxForums.com

OK, comparing this with the ISO 800 shot, I actually see no difference in detail whatsoever. If there is any, it's utterly insignificant - IMHO, of course.

Now we just need for someone with the K-1 and K-1II to provide comparison RAW files so we can see if there's any difference between those - and whether that's at all significant.

[Class A]

Here is the ISO 100 pushed with the same sharpening settings (outline emphasis 27, ringing artifact ctrl 12, bokeh preservation 0 - the ISO 800's defaults).

Am I the only one who thinks that the K-1 II-processed ISO 800 shot looks better?
There is less noise, there are less colour artefacts, the hairs are not as jagged and frayed.

It is difficult to say which of the two images is more correct. It would be ideal to have a PixelShift image for comparison as a reference. Potentially, the ISO 800 image comes closer to what we'd see from the PixelShift image.

The only part in the ISO 100 shot that I possibly like better is the apparently higher contrast of the little black curly hair (near the top left corner) against the white hairs. Potentially, the loss of detail/contrast here could suggest some "smearing". However, again, unless someone can show that the K-1 ISO 800 image would a) look different and b) would be more faithful, I don't see how it does make any sense at all to be "unhappy with results at moderate ISO settings". I really don't.

May I ask the OP to "show me the money"?

[aikaarska]

I can see some amount more details in ISO100 sample...(sorry bad quality, but still - you should see clear differences..)

Attached Images

 

[Kunzite]

Am I the only one who thinks that the K-1 II-processed ISO 800 shot looks better?

You're not the only one, this is what I'm seeing, too. Less noise, slightly more detail (but that's within measuring error). No smoothing whatsoever.

[mohb]

Is it realistic to expect 'perfect' processing from what is,realistically a consumer level (albeit high-end) camera, At this level i assume pentax have to make compromises, however small, in order to satisfy the demands of the market and I should imagine the level of nit picking from the OP and others comes low down in their priorities

[Rico]

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

I downloaded some K-1 Mkii DNG from PhotographyBlog. They open in PS CS4 ACR. I can only see the embedded Camera profile in ACR. My K-1 DNG's in PS CS4 can see all the other camera profiles Adobe Standard/Bright/Natural etc show up. I have done nothing extra to achieve this like downloading the latest DNG converter etc. ACR for PS CS4 doesn't support the K-1 in any way. So I am not sure how PS CS4 is seeing the two camera's DNG files any differently.

At any rate these camera profile settings make a big difference to the image color. Personally I stick to the embedded profile. Ideally making a custom camera profile would assure more accurate color fidelity.

[BigMackCam]

I can see some amount more details in ISO100 sample...(sorry bad quality, but still - you should see clear differences..)

I see the differences you're talking about, especially in that area half way up on the left side of each crop. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they're "clear" differences - you have to look for them, and many would not notice these at all. I consider these to be extremely minor - but I can see them when I look for them.

Frankly, I think we're reaching the limits of usefulness in testing pushed ISO 100 vs actual ISO 800 from the same camera. What we really need to see is both K-1 and K-1II at ISO 100 compared, then both cameras at ISO 800 and, potentially, the same comparison shots at a whole range of ISO settings). What's really important is comparison between the two cameras. Then, people can decide which they prefer - because we can be pretty sure that if there are differences, some will prefer the K-1 and others will prefer the K-1II... whilst many (most?) will be happy with either.

[Kunzite]

Mike, could you mark those differences and re-upload the file? Thanks in advance.

[BigMackCam]

Mike, could you mark those differences and re-upload the file? Thanks in advance.

Sure

Here you go... the file quality will really have suffered by now, so use aikaarska's last post to actually review the area in question. This is just to show where I see it most obviously.

Circled on the left is the area I see the most difference - slightly softer, and with slightly - very, very slightly - less detail. The shot on the left is the ISO 800 one, and on the right, pushed ISO 100...

[aikaarska]

Mike, could you mark those differences and re-upload the file? Thanks in advance.

For example:

[Kunzite]

Within measuring error. There are also tiny bits of detail better resolved in the ISO 800 image.

[aikaarska]

Within measuring error. There are also tiny bits of detail better resolved in the ISO 800 image.

I think that's because new (K-1M2) in-camera processing applies some extent sharpening (> ISO400)

[Kunzite]

No more theories, please. I just debunked the "smoothing" one, I don't need another.

[normhead]

No more theories, please. I just debunked the "smoothing" one, I don't need another.

It's a tough job but someone has to do it.