K-1 MK2 - Unhappy with results at moderate ISO settings

aikaarska · 04-24-2018, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

which is that there's no such thing as uncooked RAW. We need those side-by-side comparisons so we can determine how different that cooking is for the K-1II versus the K-1. After that, everyone can make their own minds up as to which is better - and that will largely depend on the individual photographer's priorities and tastes.

True, but there are less cooked and more cooked RAW formats. The less cooked, the better. I use jpg format if I want pre-chewed stuff!

Kunzite · 04-24-2018, 12:08 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Not a Number

I'm willing to bet that Ricoh's engineers have spent many more man-hours analyzing the performance and impact of the unit with far more sophisticated tools than anyone contributing to this thread. Not to mention the practical experience gained from the KP and K-70.

I'm willing the bet the same... by performing the upgrade.

**BigMackCam** · 04-24-2018, 12:17 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aikaarska

True, but there are less cooked and more cooked RAW formats.

Indeed there are, though as we can see from the diagram for the Sony sensor, there's a whole bunch of noise reduction already going on before the data even gets to the image processor, which does even more to it. Whichever way you look at it, RAW ain't "raw" in pure terms.

Originally posted by aikaarska

The less cooked, the better. I use jpg format if I want pre-chewed stuff!

I certainly wouldn't call RAW from any camera "pre-chewed", but it's certainly processed. JPEG output is a whole different ball game, though, with a whole bunch of data thrown away and hence unavailable in image post-processiung. But I do take your point, if not - with respect - your comparison to JPEG

Let's wait for the side-by-side comparisons. As I've already said a couple of times now, some people will prefer the original K-1, others the K-1II, and most won't mind one way or the other. Which is better will be highly subjective

stevebrot · 04-24-2018, 12:31 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Let's wait for the side-by-side comparisons. As I've already said a couple of times now, some people will prefer the original K-1, others the K-1II, and most won't mind one way or the other. Which is better will be highly subjective

With any luck the PF reviewers for the K-1 will have seen this thread and will tailor at least one of their examples to the questions of fine artifact and "eaten" stars.

Steve

**BigMackCam** · 04-24-2018, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

With any luck the PF reviewers for the K-1 will have seen this thread and will tailor at least one of their examples to the questions of fine artifact and "eaten" stars.

I'll prompt @Adam to ask the reviewer(s) to include this, if possible

EDIT: Request sent!

aikaarska · 04-24-2018, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I'm done with my investigation. I never said I'll keep quiet about it.
This new Pentax K-1M2 processing was not shown to eat stars, or anything else.

Don't swear yet...

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5

**BigMackCam** · 04-24-2018, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by aikaarska

Don't swear yet...

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5

((K-1 left, K-1M2 right...I see some dim stars lost)

Do you have a link for the thread in that forum, please?

EDIT: Again, we need to evaluate these files in multiple post-processing software (and also see what the camera's own JPEG engine does with it)...

photoptimist · 04-24-2018, 01:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aikaarska

Don't swear yet...

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5

((K-1 left, K-1M2 right...I see some dim stars lost)

Interesting!

I notice that both images lack some "stars" found in the other image. But that simply highlights the problem that if the SNR gets too low, things disappear. It's also possible that some of the dim "stars" in both images are just random-chance clusters of the noise that look sufficiently like a line to fool the eye.

BTW, this kind of star-trail image would never suffer from the Sony star-eater problem which only affects unmoving single-pixel stars that the noise reducer confuses for hot pixels. It would, however, suffer from another of Sony's cooked RAW artifacts that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts.

**BigMackCam** · 04-24-2018, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by photoptimist

It would, however, suffer from another of Sony's cooked RAW artifacts that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts.

... unless you use lossless, uncompressed RAW - as available on the A7 MkII (after firmware update) and later... but otherwise, I agree completely

aikaarska · 04-24-2018, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by photoptimist

Interesting!

I notice that both images lack some "stars" found in the other image. But that simply highlights the problem that if the SNR gets too low, things disappear. It's also possible that some of the dim "stars" in both images are just random-chance clusters of the noise that look sufficiently like a line to fool the eye.

BTW, this kind of star-trail image would never suffer from the Sony star-eater problem which only affects unmoving single-pixel stars that the noise reducer confuses for hot pixels. It would, however, suffer from another of Sony's cooked RAW artifacts that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts.

Finally.... WOW!!!!!! ISO 3200 looks about as good as ISO 800. 2 EV of IQ improvement!!! What an awesome upgrade in performance!!!

Yep. But actually I think that you can create that same "2 EV of IQ improvement" illusion with decent NR in post....

BTW, you're right about Sony's star eater the phenomenon, except that RAW artifacts (...that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts), is gone with newer Sony cameras (A7II, A7RII, A9, A7RIII, A7III etc.).

stevebrot · 04-24-2018, 01:39 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aikaarska

Don't swear yet...

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5

((K-1 left, K-1M2 right...I see some dim stars lost)

I am seeing stars on the right that are not on the left and vice versa.

BTW...where is the page URL?

Steve

aikaarska · 04-24-2018, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I am seeing stars on the right that are not on the left and vice versa.

BTW...where is the page URL?

Steve

It's from here:

Pentax K1m2 Sensor Performance: Noise: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

EDIT: And I'm very sorry about that my wrong information! These both are Pentax K-1M2 samples! The left at 800 ISO (pushed two stops in Lightroom) while the right at 3200. My bad.

However I think OP there (rick colman) made partly incorrect conclusions about "ISOless performance, where there is not penalty for boosting shadows, etc." ...I think it's just because of the newer more sophisticated image processing (NR) , and everything we've been talking about in this thread.

**BigMackCam** · 04-24-2018, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by photoptimist

I notice that both images lack some "stars" found in the other image.

Originally posted by stevebrot

I am seeing stars on the right that are not on the left and vice versa.

Yes, I see that too, now. It's difficult to compare the images since the framing is different, but by cropping both to the same size and position, it makes comparison easier. And, yes - there are definitely stars missing in the ISO 3200 image that were there at ISO 800, but also the other way around.

Originally posted by aikaarska

Yep. But actually I think that you can create that same "2 EV of IQ improvement" illusion with decent NR in post....

I'd like to have some identical RAW files from both K-1 and K-1II to prove that. Living in England where our natural lighting usually isn't stellar, I work a lot with high ISO files in Lightroom 6 and, increasingly, Darktable 2.4.2. I've also tried a number of other post-processing tools. I'd say I'm reasonably experienced and capable when it comes to noise reduction, and none of tools I use leave all detail intact, even at low levels.

Once we've ascertained how the K-1II's files differ from the K-1 at various ISOs, I'm looking forward to seeing someone produce better output (at 100% reproduction) with the K-1 and post-processing noise reduction, than with the K-1II. I'll be playing with the files to try it myself, and it may be possible (though I'm healthily skeptical

), but it seems we're a little way off being able to conduct that experiment...

aikaarska · 04-24-2018, 01:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Do you have a link for the thread in that forum, please?

EDIT: Again, we need to evaluate these files in multiple post-processing software (and also see what the camera's own JPEG engine does with it)...

It's from here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61004247

And Sorry Mike! I'm very sorry about that my wrong information! These both are Pentax K-1M2 samples! The left at 800 ISO (pushed two stops in Lightroom) while the right at 3200. My bad.

**BigMackCam** · 04-24-2018, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by aikaarska

It's from here:

Pentax K1m2 Sensor Performance: Noise: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

And Sorry Mike! I'm very sorry about that my wrong information! These both are Pentax K-1M2 samples! The left at 800 ISO (pushed two stops in Lightroom) while the right at 3200. My bad.

Thanks, and no problem - we all make mistakes (me especially, but don't tell anyone - I think I've gotten away with it these last few years

)...

04-24-2018, 12:43 PM	#260
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by stevebrot With any luck the PF reviewers for the K-1 will have seen this thread and will tailor at least one of their examples to the questions of fine artifact and "eaten" stars. I'll prompt @Adam to ask the reviewer(s) to include this, if possible EDIT: Request sent! Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-24-2018 at 12:50 PM.

04-24-2018, 01:01 PM	#261
aikaarska Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Finland Posts: 44	Originally posted by Kunzite I'm done with my investigation. I never said I'll keep quiet about it. This new Pentax K-1M2 processing was not shown to eat stars, or anything else. Don't swear yet... https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5 Last edited by aikaarska; 04-24-2018 at 01:46 PM.

04-24-2018, 01:19 PM - 1 Like	#263
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,126	Originally posted by aikaarska Don't swear yet... https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5 ((K-1 left, K-1M2 right...I see some dim stars lost) Interesting! I notice that both images lack some "stars" found in the other image. But that simply highlights the problem that if the SNR gets too low, things disappear. It's also possible that some of the dim "stars" in both images are just random-chance clusters of the noise that look sufficiently like a line to fool the eye. BTW, this kind of star-trail image would never suffer from the Sony star-eater problem which only affects unmoving single-pixel stars that the noise reducer confuses for hot pixels. It would, however, suffer from another of Sony's cooked RAW artifacts that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts. Last edited by photoptimist; 04-24-2018 at 02:08 PM. Reason: the images weren't what they seemed at first

04-24-2018, 01:44 PM	#267
aikaarska Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Finland Posts: 44	Originally posted by stevebrot I am seeing stars on the right that are not on the left and vice versa. BTW...where is the page URL? Steve It's from here: Pentax K1m2 Sensor Performance: Noise: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review EDIT: And I'm very sorry about that my wrong information! These both are Pentax K-1M2 samples! The left at 800 ISO (pushed two stops in Lightroom) while the right at 3200. My bad. However I think OP there (rick colman) made partly incorrect conclusions about "ISOless performance, where there is not penalty for boosting shadows, etc." ...I think it's just because of the newer more sophisticated image processing (NR) , and everything we've been talking about in this thread. Last edited by aikaarska; 04-24-2018 at 01:52 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Best moderate priced macro lens for newbie	HGMerrill	Photographic Technique	16	10-20-2014 06:08 PM
Old Moderate Mitt is Back!	boriscleto	General Talk	3	10-10-2012 02:12 PM
"Moderate" Mitt	jeffkrol	General Talk	2	10-08-2012 01:59 PM
Excesive noise in moderate light, please help	Al_s14	Pentax K-r	4	08-03-2011 03:28 PM
Pentax lens all-in-one with moderate zoom	fevbusch	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	01-27-2007 05:13 PM

04-24-2018, 12:03 PM	#256
aikaarska Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Finland Posts: 44	Originally posted by BigMackCam which is that there's no such thing as uncooked RAW. We need those side-by-side comparisons so we can determine how different that cooking is for the K-1II versus the K-1. After that, everyone can make their own minds up as to which is better - and that will largely depend on the individual photographer's priorities and tastes. True, but there are less cooked and more cooked RAW formats. The less cooked, the better. I use jpg format if I want pre-chewed stuff!

04-24-2018, 12:08 PM - 1 Like	#257
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Not a Number I'm willing to bet that Ricoh's engineers have spent many more man-hours analyzing the performance and impact of the unit with far more sophisticated tools than anyone contributing to this thread. Not to mention the practical experience gained from the KP and K-70. I'm willing the bet the same... by performing the upgrade.

04-24-2018, 12:17 PM - 1 Like	#258
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by aikaarska True, but there are less cooked and more cooked RAW formats. Indeed there are, though as we can see from the diagram for the Sony sensor, there's a whole bunch of noise reduction already going on before the data even gets to the image processor, which does even more to it. Whichever way you look at it, RAW ain't "raw" in pure terms. Originally posted by aikaarska The less cooked, the better. I use jpg format if I want pre-chewed stuff! I certainly wouldn't call RAW from any camera "pre-chewed", but it's certainly processed. JPEG output is a whole different ball game, though, with a whole bunch of data thrown away and hence unavailable in image post-processiung. But I do take your point, if not - with respect - your comparison to JPEG Let's wait for the side-by-side comparisons. As I've already said a couple of times now, some people will prefer the original K-1, others the K-1II, and most won't mind one way or the other. Which is better will be highly subjective

04-24-2018, 12:31 PM - 1 Like	#259
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by BigMackCam Let's wait for the side-by-side comparisons. As I've already said a couple of times now, some people will prefer the original K-1, others the K-1II, and most won't mind one way or the other. Which is better will be highly subjective With any luck the PF reviewers for the K-1 will have seen this thread and will tailor at least one of their examples to the questions of fine artifact and "eaten" stars. Steve

04-24-2018, 01:05 PM	#262
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by aikaarska Don't swear yet... https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5 ((K-1 left, K-1M2 right...I see some dim stars lost) Do you have a link for the thread in that forum, please? EDIT: Again, we need to evaluate these files in multiple post-processing software (and also see what the camera's own JPEG engine does with it)...

04-24-2018, 01:28 PM	#264
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by photoptimist It would, however, suffer from another of Sony's cooked RAW artifacts that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts. ... unless you use lossless, uncompressed RAW - as available on the A7 MkII (after firmware update) and later... but otherwise, I agree completely

04-24-2018, 01:31 PM	#265
aikaarska Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Finland Posts: 44	Originally posted by photoptimist Interesting! I notice that both images lack some "stars" found in the other image. But that simply highlights the problem that if the SNR gets too low, things disappear. It's also possible that some of the dim "stars" in both images are just random-chance clusters of the noise that look sufficiently like a line to fool the eye. BTW, this kind of star-trail image would never suffer from the Sony star-eater problem which only affects unmoving single-pixel stars that the noise reducer confuses for hot pixels. It would, however, suffer from another of Sony's cooked RAW artifacts that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts. Finally.... WOW!!!!!! ISO 3200 looks about as good as ISO 800. 2 EV of IQ improvement!!! What an awesome upgrade in performance!!! Yep. But actually I think that you can create that same "2 EV of IQ improvement" illusion with decent NR in post.... BTW, you're right about Sony's star eater the phenomenon, except that RAW artifacts (...that affect very bright star trails and create a halo of blocky compression artifacts), is gone with newer Sony cameras (A7II, A7RII, A9, A7RIII, A7III etc.).

04-24-2018, 01:39 PM - 1 Like	#266
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by aikaarska Don't swear yet... https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61004247/064406d267d44881b362db2843d9aab5 ((K-1 left, K-1M2 right...I see some dim stars lost) I am seeing stars on the right that are not on the left and vice versa. BTW...where is the page URL? Steve

04-24-2018, 01:50 PM	#268
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by photoptimist I notice that both images lack some "stars" found in the other image. Originally posted by stevebrot I am seeing stars on the right that are not on the left and vice versa. Yes, I see that too, now. It's difficult to compare the images since the framing is different, but by cropping both to the same size and position, it makes comparison easier. And, yes - there are definitely stars missing in the ISO 3200 image that were there at ISO 800, but also the other way around. Originally posted by aikaarska Yep. But actually I think that you can create that same "2 EV of IQ improvement" illusion with decent NR in post.... I'd like to have some identical RAW files from both K-1 and K-1II to prove that. Living in England where our natural lighting usually isn't stellar, I work a lot with high ISO files in Lightroom 6 and, increasingly, Darktable 2.4.2. I've also tried a number of other post-processing tools. I'd say I'm reasonably experienced and capable when it comes to noise reduction, and none of tools I use leave all detail intact, even at low levels. Once we've ascertained how the K-1II's files differ from the K-1 at various ISOs, I'm looking forward to seeing someone produce better output (at 100% reproduction) with the K-1 and post-processing noise reduction, than with the K-1II. I'll be playing with the files to try it myself, and it may be possible (though I'm healthily skeptical ), but it seems we're a little way off being able to conduct that experiment...

04-24-2018, 01:55 PM - 1 Like	#269
aikaarska Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Finland Posts: 44	Originally posted by BigMackCam Do you have a link for the thread in that forum, please? EDIT: Again, we need to evaluate these files in multiple post-processing software (and also see what the camera's own JPEG engine does with it)... It's from here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61004247 And Sorry Mike! I'm very sorry about that my wrong information! These both are Pentax K-1M2 samples! The left at 800 ISO (pushed two stops in Lightroom) while the right at 3200. My bad.

04-24-2018, 02:07 PM	#270
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by aikaarska It's from here: Pentax K1m2 Sensor Performance: Noise: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review And Sorry Mike! I'm very sorry about that my wrong information! These both are Pentax K-1M2 samples! The left at 800 ISO (pushed two stops in Lightroom) while the right at 3200. My bad. Thanks, and no problem - we all make mistakes (me especially, but don't tell anyone - I think I've gotten away with it these last few years )...