[BigMackCam]

But after several hundreds os test shots with the K1 I discovered that increasing the clarity to +4 (the writing speed slows down a lot though)

Sadly, there's no such thing as a "free lunch" The clarity adjustment takes a certain amount of processing power, and the in-camera systems aren't anything like as powerful as a typical PC. What seems like a simple slider adjustment in post-processing software actually involves a lot of number crunching. Doing the adjustment in-camera is a much slower process.

However I still find the greens (vegetation) and blues (skies) a bit weak in certain conditions compared to Nikon. If I increase the color saturation, the result is quite forced, for all the other colors and if I play with the hue the whole color chart "rotates" (changes) in one or other direction. I didn't know that I can set different settings for each color individually, how can I do that? (I'm going to look at the owners manual once at home, in the mean time you might help me on that).

Again, this is simply a limitation of in-camera JPEG processing... There's only so much you can do with it.

I understand your reasons for not wanting to get bogged down in post-processing, but by setting up and using one or two presets in Lightroom (or similar), you can apply these to all of your photos on import. It's perfectly realistic to have Lightroom do all the work for you, so that all you need to do is import the photos, let Lightroom do its thing, then export them into whatever end product you want (e.g. JPEG). It really needn't be a time-consuming process - in fact, if anyone spends a significant amount of time in Lightroom for each individual image, it really ought to be because they're going for wildly artistic and individual results on a per-photo basis - otherwise, there's something wrong (and/or inefficient) in their workflow...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 05-01-2018 at 08:38 AM.

[reh321]

It would be good, if Ricoh provided a camera menu option in Mk II where you could just switch the accelerator unit off or bypass it when the noise reduction is not desired. Otherwise, Mk II is like a Subaru car, with a permanent four-wheel drive whether you need it or not.

Where is the amplifier that provides ISO values above base located? In the sensor, or somewhere 'downstream'?

[Pentax Syntax]

I have an original K-1 and a three week old K-1 ii. My decision to upgrade the K-1 or not was going to be based on my experience with the new camera. I have shot with it a lot and have come to appreciate the dynamic pixel shift for many shots. The reported higher sensitivity is almost non-detectable for low to normal ISO. It is marginally relevant at 6400. I might occasionally use 12800 on the K-1 ii. That ISO cleans up pretty well in LR. Autofocus is marginally better for moving objects. I will probably upgrade to get Dynamic pixel shift. Great new feature.

[alvaro_garcia]

I have an original K-1 and a three week old K-1 ii. My decision to upgrade the K-1 or not was going to be based on my experience with the new camera. I have shot with it a lot and have come to appreciate the dynamic pixel shift for many shots. The reported higher sensitivity is almost non-detectable for low to normal ISO. It is marginally relevant at 6400. I might occasionally use 12800 on the K-1 ii. That ISO cleans up pretty well in LR. Autofocus is marginally better for moving objects. I will probably upgrade to get Dynamic pixel shift. Great new feature.

How about the colour rendition between both models? Is there really a difference on greens and blues for landscape photography as Pentax claims to have improved on the K1-II?

[Pentax Syntax]

How about the colour rendition between both models? Is there really a difference on greens and blues for landscape photography as Pentax claims to have improved on the K1-II?

I am a Raw+ shooter so usually ignore out of camera results but if there is a difference, it is subtle IMHO.

[surfar]

I should put money away for a really good landscape lens instead.

You have plenty of time to save up!

---------- Post added 05-02-18 at 04:35 AM ----------

If I had the money I. Would upgrade to Pentax full frame.

Its worth saving up.

I am not even considering something like a fuji x-h1

The amount of good equipment coming is pretty astounding,2018 is an advancement year.

[grahame]

I don't quite get it: if adding a chip in the camera can improve the high ISO performance, why can't Ricoh release an upgrade for the image processing software to get the same result? Sensor is still the same, so same data is recorded.

So I think it does not make sense for anyone who shoots RAW to spend $500 and to expect much better high ISO images from the upgrading.

I think the upgrading is for handheld pixel shift, and of plausible improvement of AF ability.

Maybe I should do it, and claim the AF does not work after upgrading and let them fix it

[alvaro_garcia]

I should put money away for a really good landscape lens instead.

I bought several Zeiss Distagon lenses (25mm, 28mm and 35mm) with original Pentax ZK mount for the K1 and the results are absolutely outstanding. Gorgeous. The level of detail and micro-contrast reached by these glasses easily outperform the Pentax (Tamron) 24-70mm which I'm disappointed with for the price. These Zeiss lenses are truly great for landscape shooting, however if you try to focus at short or medium distances (up to let's say 50-60m), although the camera gives you visual (green dot) and audible (beep) signals, it's really difficult to spot-on the focus (my advice is to take several shots moving slightly the focus ring between shots, so you'll be sure to get at least one in-focus). Everything further than that distance is in-focus when you put it to infinite.

Another very good lens (although the focal length isn't my prefered) is the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4, and it's autofocus. But I'm going to keep my Zeiss lenses, I just love them! And I have Zeiss T* circular polarizer filters on each and I couldn't be more satisfied with the combo!

If this helps.

[photoptimist]

I don't quite get it: if adding a chip in the camera can improve the high ISO performance, why can't Ricoh release an upgrade for the image processing software to get the same result? Sensor is still the same, so same data is recorded.

So I think it does not make sense for anyone who shoots RAW to spend $500 and to expect much better high ISO images from the upgrading.

I think the upgrading is for handheld pixel shift, and of plausible improvement of AF ability.

Maybe I should do it, and claim the AF does not work after upgrading and let them fix it

Three issues:

First, the accelerator may well have access to sensor calibration data (from the factory or pixel-mapping function) that is never exported to the SD card.

Second, dedicated chips can sometimes implement very specialized algorithms hundreds or thousands of times faster than code on a general processor.

Third, camera makers compete on the straight-out-of-camera quality of their RAW and JPG images. Even if Ricoh could release an upgrade for the image processing software, it would not help them sell cameras.

[grahame]

Three issues:

First, the accelerator may well have access to sensor calibration data (from the factory or pixel-mapping function) that is never exported to the SD card.

Second, dedicated chips can sometimes implement very specialized algorithms hundreds or thousands of times faster than code on a general processor.

Third, camera makers compete on the straight-out-of-camera quality of their RAW and JPG images. Even if Ricoh could release an upgrade for the image processing software, it would not help them sell cameras.

I think it should be stated "three strategies that camera makers used to promoter their camera sell"

1. they can choose to let camera write all information to SFD card, if they want
2. computer processor is still more powerful than on-borad chip in the camera. they know the algorithms and it is not difficult to move this part of job to computer processor. We process RAW on computer anyway, right?
3. True! that is the only reason.

Anyway, the upgrade is still attractive for JPEG shooters need better high ISO performance, and for those want to try handheld pixel shift.

[photoptimist]

I think it should be stated "three strategies that camera makers used to promoter their camera sell"

1. they can choose to let camera write all information to SFD card, if they want
2. computer processor is still more powerful than on-borad chip in the camera. they know the algorithms and it is not difficult to move this part of job to computer processor. We process RAW on computer anyway, right?
3. True! that is the only reason.

Anyway, the upgrade is still attractive for JPEG shooters need better high ISO performance, and for those want to try handheld pixel shift.

You're probably right that #3 is the real reason.

Doing #1 adds costs to the camera in terms of writing all the software to output the file in a readable fashion (convert an array in RAM into a readable file with required metadata), then add the menu commands to control the feature, update the manual to explain what they hell all these extra 36 MPix files are that are filing up the SD card, and write software for a post processor to use these files.

#2 may be false. The point of dedicated accelerator chips is that they are often much more powerful than any desktop PC (but only for an extremely specific tasks). A great example of that is bitcoin mining where dedicated chips are about 100,000 times faster than the best PC CPU.


Note: The K-1ii upgrade is not just for JPG. It's also attractive (if controversial) for RAW shooters because that is what the accelerator is cleaning. The accelerator actually sits between sensor and the camera's CPU and cleans the pixel data as it comes in.

[grahame]

A great example of that is bitcoin mining where dedicated chips are about 100,000 times faster than the best PC CPU.

Calculating power is still the limit. Smart phone takes better images than DSLR for many, only because the processor in the smart phone is much more powerful and knows what to do. so it can provide much better cooked images than the "raw" image from DSLR, which photographer has to tell camera what to do.

bitcoin mining machine uses GPU, which is faster than CPU. Regular PC uses a 8-16 gb video card for ALL the tasks, including driving 4K display, editing image, paying games; bitcoin mining machine uses much more powerful GPU that costs $1000-$10000 or much more for bitcoin mining ONLY. If you put same GPU on a bitcoin mining machine on a PC and let it run DOS system, it going to be lightning fast

accelerator chip on K1ii can not match the ones on bitcoin machine.

If that chip can clean the pixel data collected from sensors, computer CPU can do it also. Maybe a little slower, depends on how the software engineer write the code.

-- anyway, Ricoh won't let it happen in the near future.

[photoptimist]

Calculating power is still the limit. Smart phone takes better images than DSLR for many, only because the processor in the smart phone is much more powerful and knows what to do. so it can provide much better cooked images than the "raw" image from DSLR, which photographer has to tell camera what to do.

bitcoin mining machine uses GPU, which is faster than CPU. Regular PC uses a 8-16 gb video card for ALL the tasks, including driving 4K display, editing image, paying games; bitcoin mining machine uses much more powerful GPU that costs $1000-$10000 or much more for bitcoin mining ONLY. If you put same GPU on a bitcoin mining machine on a PC and let it run DOS system, it going to be lightning fast

accelerator chip on K1ii can not match the ones on bitcoin machine.

If that chip can clean the pixel data collected from sensors, computer CPU can do it also. Maybe a little slower, depends on how the software engineer write the code.

-- anyway, Ricoh won't let it happen in the near future.

Actually, ASIC-based bitcoin mining machines are faster that GPU-based bitcoin mining machines (and consume less electricity per coin found) but they are very specialized. Watt-for-watt bitcoin ASICs are on the order of 150-1000X faster than GPUs.

The accelerator chip on K1ii certainly can't match the ones on bitcoin machine at mining bitcoins but then the bitcoin ASICs can't clean images. ASICs are extremely specialized.

The point is that an ASIC is designed at the transistor or gate level to do one calculation extremely efficiently and quickly. For example, a CPU typically has 64-bit registers and does 64-bit math. The number of transistors needed to implement a 64-bit multiplier is quite large. But if all one needs is 14-bit multiplication, then the ASIC can contain 20 copies of a multiplier circuit in the same space that the CPU only has one. That alone can make an ASIC 20X faster than PC CPU. A CPU also has all sorts of circuitry dedicated to all the different kinds of functions that maybe aren't required for the pixel-cleaning function so that's more space that could be converted over to ASIC functionality. ASIC performance can be even higher if they implement complex mathematical functions directly rather then need some complex string of instructions.


It's fairer to say Ricoh won't waste it's money implementing a post-processing solution because very few people would pay extra for that.

[reh321]

I don't quite get it: if adding a chip in the camera can improve the high ISO performance, why can't Ricoh release an upgrade for the image processing software to get the same result? Sensor is still the same, so same data is recorded.

So I think it does not make sense for anyone who shoots RAW to spend $500 and to expect much better high ISO images from the upgrading.

The 'accelerator' is getting bits directly from a 'clean' path to the sensor, is Pentax's claim; this is like integrating similar circuitry directly onto the sensor as an added layer, but Pentax doesn't manufacture sensors. Even a 'raw' file has been through the processor and various opportunities to pick up crud, so processing data away from the camera can never have data quite as clean or predictable.

[BigMackCam]

Actually, ASIC-based bitcoin mining machines are faster that GPU-based bitcoin mining machines (and consume less electricity per coin found) but they are very specialized. Watt-for-watt bitcoin ASICs are on the order of 150-1000X faster than GPUs.

How the heck do you know all this stuff?!

Technology... photography... optical physics... the list seems to go on and on.

If you tell me you have an encyclopedic knowledge of wines too, I'm giving up. There's no way I can compete around here...