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

**Skewed** · 04-16-2018, 11:27 AM

I see the OP is using Lightroom 7.3. I just reverted to Lightroom 7.2 because I don't like the new profiles on 7.3. I don't have a MkII, but my K1 DNGs on 7.3 defaults look overprocessed to me.

stevebrot · 04-16-2018, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by emsee

I tried to open one of the initial photos (PEF file) from K1 Mark 2 with Lightroom CC and it does not open up.

That makes sense for PEF from an unsupported camera. My statement was in response to another comment regarding K-1II DNG files.

Steve

stevebrot · 04-16-2018, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Skewed

I see the OP is using Lightroom 7.3. I just reverted to Lightroom 7.2 because I don't like the new profiles on 7.3. I don't have a MkII, but my K1 DNGs on 7.3 defaults look overprocessed to me.

The plot thickens!

Steve

Andrea K · 04-17-2018, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

It does, though with support limited to the embedded camera profile. Such profiles may result in less robust color rendering, but should not create artifact such as in the top photo.

Steve

yep... should not create....

Class A · 04-17-2018, 08:07 AM - **5 Likes**

Originally posted by Tjompen1968

After having so much disappointments with the K-1, you went and bought a K-1II that is also a disappointment. That has to be a bummer.

Although you use irony, overall, I don't think you are being rude by making an accurate observation.

The OP has been very vocal about what he didn't like about the K-1. His views often lended themselves to being categorised as "extreme", e.g., when expecting one of the most rugged full-frame cameras with an incredible value for money proposition to cope even better with some of the most adverse weather conditions imaginable. The OP often scolded Pentax for not building in support for conditions that almost all of its users will never encounter.

IIRC, he was gone for a while and I really didn't mind having him focus his unrealistic expectations at some other unfortunate product.

Providing a critical analysis of a product is good. Having completely unrealistic expectations is not. I'm not making any comment on the subject at hand (K-1 II image quality). I'm just observing that exaggeration is not a new behaviour of this poster (IMHO).

johnkrumm · 04-17-2018, 10:13 AM - **1 Like**

Looks fine to me. I downloaded a few K1 II files from Ephotozine, at high iso, higher than I usually shoot (above iso 6400). I was concerned there might be some smearing from pre-raw noise reduction. Looking at them in Lightroom 7.3, all I saw was good detail, even in the reds. So I'll reserve judgement until I can see more raw samples.

CNunez · 04-17-2018, 11:12 AM

I think the issue here is "Horrible IQ at ISO800" not in those words, but yeah, you get where I'm going. Low ISO values aren't a guarantee for detail or clean images. The first thing to taking a clean image is having enough light if your light is inadequate your sensor is limited in detail. A higher ISO value amplifies the received signal. But if that signal (light) isn't good enough to start with, the sensor can't do much more. Judging from the picture. You're outside where light is generally always much brighter and fuller than indoors, so shooting at 800 could be towards sunset? It certainly looks warm to the touch. That could mean that detail can be lost. It was also shot with a f1.4 aperture? that could mean a DOF issue. especially being close to the subject. The center of the frame looks quite sharp.

I could read about your PP NR, but what about incamera?

There are a lot of factors as to why an image doesn't always look like you want to.

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a huge issue here that can't be solved by changing the exposure.

**Skewed** · 04-17-2018, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Michaelina2

... then you might find this and/or other topic offerings in the series worthwhile if you do not know it already:

Adobe Releases Major Lightroom Update: It's a Whole New, More Modern Editing Workflow - Lightroom Killer Tips

Also, while the K-1 is fully supported by LR 7.3 (and some earlier versions of LR), the K-1 MkII is not supported by any version of LR (yet) For example, DNG images produced by both cameras can be opened in LR 7.3 and K-1 PEFs can be opened in LR 7.3, but the K-1 MkIIs cannot. Anyway, until the K-1 Mk II is supported, be wary of early K-1 MkII "test scene" image offerings and comments developed in unsupportive LR. It applies only its defaults to the K-1 MkII, then offers its most generic color profiles. The observer/commentator/tester may not be fully up to speed.

Cheers, and enjoy the season... M

Thanks for the link. I have been perusing Lightroom Killer Tips, and I noted that one of the recent posts gave advice on how to uninstall 7.3 and revert to an earlier version. I must say the earlier "Adobe Standard" RAW profile looked right to me, and the new "Adobe Color" default profile looks overly processed, but I'm a dinosaur whose favorite medium was Kodachrome 64. I much prefer to do my fine-tuning in LR "manually" so I'll probably stay with 7.2.

Unregistered User · 04-17-2018, 02:09 PM

I use the Camera Bright setting since it mimics the look I get in the camera. Do not see that that has changed between the versions... Also the new version still gives you the possibility to change to Adobe Standard as default if so needed.

aikaarska · 04-17-2018, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I requested access to the DNG. It will be nice to see how much was introduced in PP.

Steve

I've tried similar DNG files of K-1M2... Unfortunately, it does not help the matter. It's pretty true what OP wrote/spotted. Pentax has done kind of NR for K-1M2 image processing, and it also affects to RAW files - which isn't a good thing at all. This didn't happen with original K-1. Still these cameras basically have the same sensor.

OP wrote: "Horrible pixel level quality @ ISO800 (looks like cellphone image) from a sensor which gave a lot better results back in 2012 in D800(E) Nikon body. This is looking like filtering what happens with Sony A7x bodies after 3.2second exposures. Some examples of Sony filtered mess...."

Well, I don't accept provocative cellphone comparison here, but otherwise this is true. I hope that Pentax/Ricoh can fix this with new firmware, whether it is even possible, it is not certain.

Sony has got a lot of criticism of their "star eater" algorithm, and now Pentax has unfortunately chosen the same way. This is very unfortunate. It may ruin the otherwise excellent camera for some photographers. For example for astro shooters, and for landscape photographers...

Ari

Not a Number · 04-17-2018, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by aikaarska

Sony has got a lot of criticism of their "star eater" algorithm, and now Pentax has unfortunately chosen the same way. This is very unfortunate. It may ruin the otherwise excellent camera for some photographers. For example for astro shooters, and for landscape photographers...

Pentax K-1 Mark II Early Reviews? - Page 13 - PentaxForums.com

aikaarska · 04-17-2018, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Not a Number

Pentax K-1 Mark II Early Reviews? - Page 13 - PentaxForums.com

quote: "Beautiful, great latitude of laying seems to me. Punctiform stars also..."

...and also some dim stars have disappeared because of NR...

Yep, beautiful clean looking, but mainly because of new NR algorithm. The bad thing is that it is now part of the basic image processing (forced) and also affected to RAW files...This is not the right path, every serious photographer makes NR post-treatment self - as much as needs/wants. The camera should not do that automatic, what comes to RAW files!

stevebrot · 04-17-2018, 04:26 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aikaarska

I've tried similar DNG files of K-1M2... Unfortunately, it does not help the matter. It's pretty true what OP wrote/spotted. Pentax has done kind of NR for K-1M2 image processing, and it also affects to RAW files - which isn't a good thing at all. This didn't happen with original K-1. Still these cameras basically have the same sensor.

OK...will you share the DNG or PEF? Either will do.

...and yes, all three variants (original, mk2, and mk2-converted) have the same sensor.

Steve

stevebrot · 04-17-2018, 04:28 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aikaarska

Sony has got a lot of criticism of their "star eater" algorithm, and now Pentax has unfortunately chosen the same way.

Evidence? One should not need a star to demonstrate, though it would be good to remember that even the best Bayer demosaic will eat details. Share the RAW.

Steve

**BigMackCam** · 04-17-2018, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Evidence? One should not need a star to demonstrate, though it would be good to remember that even the best Bayer demosaic will eat details. Share the RAW.

Agreed.

I'd like to see the "star eater" comparison baseline... i.e. Camera A recorded *these* stars (A, B, C etc.) whilst camera B (the K-1II) didn't, or only recorded some of them...

04-17-2018, 04:26 PM - 1 Like	#43
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by aikaarska I've tried similar DNG files of K-1M2... Unfortunately, it does not help the matter. It's pretty true what OP wrote/spotted. Pentax has done kind of NR for K-1M2 image processing, and it also affects to RAW files - which isn't a good thing at all. This didn't happen with original K-1. Still these cameras basically have the same sensor. OK...will you share the DNG or PEF? Either will do. ...and yes, all three variants (original, mk2, and mk2-converted) have the same sensor. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 04-17-2018 at 05:16 PM.

04-17-2018, 04:28 PM - 1 Like	#44
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by aikaarska Sony has got a lot of criticism of their "star eater" algorithm, and now Pentax has unfortunately chosen the same way. Evidence? One should not need a star to demonstrate, though it would be good to remember that even the best Bayer demosaic will eat details. Share the RAW. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 04-17-2018 at 04:51 PM. Reason: Removed non-pertinent footnote

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

04-16-2018, 11:27 AM	#31
Skewed Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: San Mateo, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 179	I see the OP is using Lightroom 7.3. I just reverted to Lightroom 7.2 because I don't like the new profiles on 7.3. I don't have a MkII, but my K1 DNGs on 7.3 defaults look overprocessed to me.

04-16-2018, 12:39 PM	#32
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by emsee I tried to open one of the initial photos (PEF file) from K1 Mark 2 with Lightroom CC and it does not open up. That makes sense for PEF from an unsupported camera. My statement was in response to another comment regarding K-1II DNG files. Steve

04-16-2018, 12:39 PM	#33
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Skewed I see the OP is using Lightroom 7.3. I just reverted to Lightroom 7.2 because I don't like the new profiles on 7.3. I don't have a MkII, but my K1 DNGs on 7.3 defaults look overprocessed to me. The plot thickens! Steve

04-17-2018, 12:46 AM	#34
Andrea K Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rome, Italy Posts: 822	Originally posted by stevebrot It does, though with support limited to the embedded camera profile. Such profiles may result in less robust color rendering, but should not create artifact such as in the top photo. Steve yep... should not create....

04-17-2018, 08:07 AM - 5 Likes	#35
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Tjompen1968 After having so much disappointments with the K-1, you went and bought a K-1II that is also a disappointment. That has to be a bummer. Although you use irony, overall, I don't think you are being rude by making an accurate observation. The OP has been very vocal about what he didn't like about the K-1. His views often lended themselves to being categorised as "extreme", e.g., when expecting one of the most rugged full-frame cameras with an incredible value for money proposition to cope even better with some of the most adverse weather conditions imaginable. The OP often scolded Pentax for not building in support for conditions that almost all of its users will never encounter. IIRC, he was gone for a while and I really didn't mind having him focus his unrealistic expectations at some other unfortunate product. Providing a critical analysis of a product is good. Having completely unrealistic expectations is not. I'm not making any comment on the subject at hand (K-1 II image quality). I'm just observing that exaggeration is not a new behaviour of this poster (IMHO).

04-17-2018, 10:13 AM - 1 Like	#36
johnkrumm Senior Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Duluth, MN Posts: 141	Looks fine to me. I downloaded a few K1 II files from Ephotozine, at high iso, higher than I usually shoot (above iso 6400). I was concerned there might be some smearing from pre-raw noise reduction. Looking at them in Lightroom 7.3, all I saw was good detail, even in the reds. So I'll reserve judgement until I can see more raw samples.

04-17-2018, 11:12 AM	#37
CNunez Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 168	I think the issue here is "Horrible IQ at ISO800" not in those words, but yeah, you get where I'm going. Low ISO values aren't a guarantee for detail or clean images. The first thing to taking a clean image is having enough light if your light is inadequate your sensor is limited in detail. A higher ISO value amplifies the received signal. But if that signal (light) isn't good enough to start with, the sensor can't do much more. Judging from the picture. You're outside where light is generally always much brighter and fuller than indoors, so shooting at 800 could be towards sunset? It certainly looks warm to the touch. That could mean that detail can be lost. It was also shot with a f1.4 aperture? that could mean a DOF issue. especially being close to the subject. The center of the frame looks quite sharp. I could read about your PP NR, but what about incamera? There are a lot of factors as to why an image doesn't always look like you want to. correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a huge issue here that can't be solved by changing the exposure.

04-17-2018, 12:52 PM	#38
Skewed Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: San Mateo, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 179	Originally posted by Michaelina2 ... then you might find this and/or other topic offerings in the series worthwhile if you do not know it already: Adobe Releases Major Lightroom Update: It's a Whole New, More Modern Editing Workflow - Lightroom Killer Tips Also, while the K-1 is fully supported by LR 7.3 (and some earlier versions of LR), the K-1 MkII is not supported by any version of LR (yet) For example, DNG images produced by both cameras can be opened in LR 7.3 and K-1 PEFs can be opened in LR 7.3, but the K-1 MkIIs cannot. Anyway, until the K-1 Mk II is supported, be wary of early K-1 MkII "test scene" image offerings and comments developed in unsupportive LR. It applies only its defaults to the K-1 MkII, then offers its most generic color profiles. The observer/commentator/tester may not be fully up to speed. Cheers, and enjoy the season... M Thanks for the link. I have been perusing Lightroom Killer Tips, and I noted that one of the recent posts gave advice on how to uninstall 7.3 and revert to an earlier version. I must say the earlier "Adobe Standard" RAW profile looked right to me, and the new "Adobe Color" default profile looks overly processed, but I'm a dinosaur whose favorite medium was Kodachrome 64. I much prefer to do my fine-tuning in LR "manually" so I'll probably stay with 7.2.

04-17-2018, 02:09 PM	#39
Unregistered User Guest	I use the Camera Bright setting since it mimics the look I get in the camera. Do not see that that has changed between the versions... Also the new version still gives you the possibility to change to Adobe Standard as default if so needed.

04-17-2018, 02:17 PM	#40
aikaarska Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Finland Posts: 44	Originally posted by stevebrot I requested access to the DNG. It will be nice to see how much was introduced in PP. Steve I've tried similar DNG files of K-1M2... Unfortunately, it does not help the matter. It's pretty true what OP wrote/spotted. Pentax has done kind of NR for K-1M2 image processing, and it also affects to RAW files - which isn't a good thing at all. This didn't happen with original K-1. Still these cameras basically have the same sensor. OP wrote: "Horrible pixel level quality @ ISO800 (looks like cellphone image) from a sensor which gave a lot better results back in 2012 in D800(E) Nikon body. This is looking like filtering what happens with Sony A7x bodies after 3.2second exposures. Some examples of Sony filtered mess...." Well, I don't accept provocative cellphone comparison here, but otherwise this is true. I hope that Pentax/Ricoh can fix this with new firmware, whether it is even possible, it is not certain. Sony has got a lot of criticism of their "star eater" algorithm, and now Pentax has unfortunately chosen the same way. This is very unfortunate. It may ruin the otherwise excellent camera for some photographers. For example for astro shooters, and for landscape photographers... Ari

04-17-2018, 02:34 PM	#41
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	Originally posted by aikaarska Sony has got a lot of criticism of their "star eater" algorithm, and now Pentax has unfortunately chosen the same way. This is very unfortunate. It may ruin the otherwise excellent camera for some photographers. For example for astro shooters, and for landscape photographers... Pentax K-1 Mark II Early Reviews? - Page 13 - PentaxForums.com

04-17-2018, 02:47 PM	#42
aikaarska Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Finland Posts: 44	Originally posted by Not a Number Pentax K-1 Mark II Early Reviews? - Page 13 - PentaxForums.com quote: "Beautiful, great latitude of laying seems to me. Punctiform stars also..." ...and also some dim stars have disappeared because of NR... Yep, beautiful clean looking, but mainly because of new NR algorithm. The bad thing is that it is now part of the basic image processing (forced) and also affected to RAW files...This is not the right path, every serious photographer makes NR post-treatment self - as much as needs/wants. The camera should not do that automatic, what comes to RAW files!

04-17-2018, 04:57 PM	#45
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,695	Originally posted by stevebrot Evidence? One should not need a star to demonstrate, though it would be good to remember that even the best Bayer demosaic will eat details. Share the RAW. Agreed. I'd like to see the "star eater" comparison baseline... i.e. Camera A recorded these stars (A, B, C etc.) whilst camera B (the K-1II) didn't, or only recorded some of them...