[Sandy Hancock]

Firmware upgrades are likely to be delivered only for the mk2 model from now on, at least new features should there be such on the list.

What is the basis for this wild supposition?

[Kunzite]

On the basis that it's the most disadvantageous scenario.

The "if you don't know, ask" approach is surprisingly unpopular:
Q. Do you have any plan to close the Firmware Update Service for K-1 when the K-I Mark II is released ?
A. No, we will keep continue the service.

(Of course, one shouldn't take firmware upgrades for granted and buy products hoping for unlikely 'improvements').

[photoptimist]

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...

LOL! I love science and technology. Part of my misspent youth involved mucking about with microprocessors back when 16 kilobytes was a HUGE amount of memory and it was possible to figure out what every transistor and every instruction was doing.

You are safe on wines. My knowledge is limited to looking at the pretty labels. Beer on the other hand......

[monochrome]

I’m going to trade off a tiny bit of RAW edge detail for slightly cleaner ISO 3200-6400 files. The debate is whether I will also need a KP with Accelerator Unit and all those DA lenses (and surplus F + FA lenses) after upgrading the K-1. Will two cameras with the AU be justified? Will DPSS be a good trade for <3.5 fps?

Can I actually sell something even if it would mean I’d come out $2,000 ahead?

[texandrews]

I believe I will upgrade. I use the K1 as a complement to my Z now. For "most" the most serious work, it's the Z all the way.

The K1 has special utility for me, however: UWA (more than around 19-20 Fl FF equiv., which is what the Z's 25 is) with the Irix 15 or now the 15-30 (although the Irix is much better for less rectilinear distortion...); and then, there's low light, high iso action. I have to sometimes shoot activities during museum installs---light levels are low, but I have to freeze the action, and can't use flash. Even one stop more leeway is a great boon here, and it looks like it could be a bit more than that. That it looks like it's handling color better at higher iso's is particularly good.

Jury's still out AFAIC, and I can't upgrade until July anyway---need the camera until then. Hopefully we will know more by then.

[felixkh]

Firmware upgrades are likely to be delivered only for the mk2 model from now on, at least new features should there be such on the list.

Ricoh has always created firmware for previous models since the K5 days. What makes you say that they will only create for newer models only?

[clackers]

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...

Photoptimist is just another reason people need to pay up and become members of this forum.

Not only does he know this stuff, he explains it brilliantly, with directness and style. And he has a sense of humour ... need we go on?

[Erictator]

I was gung ho at first annoncement! But since I've seen the new mk II sample pics I'm on the fence as well, but for a slightly different reason...

Mainly because all the sample comparisons to my K-1 classic show the raw output of the mk II to be smoother at high ISO, but it also looses some detail and the grain looks a little smeared to me. That is a bit of a taboo in my viewpoint. I'd rather do my own manual noise reduction because I have workflows where I will sometimes select backgrounds or sky and selective reduce noise in areas where detail doesn't matter, and other tricks of the trade...but detail lost at the camera raw output, that is gone forever.

I am still waiting for a definitive review that really sells me on the new noise reduction and color accuracy... and haven't quite seen one yet that gets me excited. The faster AF would be nice, but fat lot of good that'll do me if I don't like the output, otherwise I'd be shooting a D500/A9 if fast AF was my main concern.

Also, I am still waiting on a definitive statement on the earlier comment about having to shoot PEF to get any advantage out if the mk II, since I'm kinda hanging on to DNG to stay off the adobe cloud /upgrade bandwagon.

[tax]

Here is quite interesting Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - A hands-on comparison in RAW and JPEG mode report:

Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

It appears that images produced by K-1 Mk II are smoother and have less details in them even at base ISO 100.
Now I am questioning my own urge to upgrade my K-1 to Mk II.

[MJKoski]

What is the basis for this wild supposition?

I meant new features like bulb timer and night vision which were added for mk-1 back in 2016. Of course, bug fixes should exist for every recent model out there.

[BigMackCam]

LOL! I love science and technology. Part of my misspent youth involved mucking about with microprocessors back when 16 kilobytes was a HUGE amount of memory and it was possible to figure out what every transistor and every instruction was doing.

That was much of my youth too, and the early part of my career I spent a good deal of my pre-teen and early teenage years writing 8080/85, Z80, 6502, 6809 and 68000-series assembly language

Photoptimist is just another reason people need to pay up and become members of this forum.

Not only does he know this stuff, he explains it brilliantly, with directness and style. And he has a sense of humour ... need we go on?

Absolutely.

If I learn much more from him, I risk incurring tuition fees

[alvaro_garcia]

Here is quite interesting Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - A hands-on comparison in RAW and JPEG mode report:

Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

It appears that images produced by K-1 Mk II are smoother and have less details in them even at base ISO 100.
Now I am questioning my own urge to upgrade my K-1 to Mk II.

From what I've seen on that analysis, the K1-II offers less noise at the cost of less detail (the images from the K1 look sharper across the whole range at the cost of -only from higher ISOs- slight more noise). Some talk about better colour rendition / colour depth on the K1-II (at high ISOs) too, but I can't notice this.

Since I'm mainly an ISO-100 shooter (with very minor exceptions <0.1% of ISO-200 or 400, no higher), I'd say that for me the difference in noise levels would be negligible (<0.1% - 0%) to none on both models, but the difference in detail would remain even at low ISO settings (although possibly negligible at base ISO), giving the edge overall to the K1. And considering that actually I do prefer sharper images which at ISO-100 or 200 will still give zero noise, my thinking is that the upgrade is not worth it. Morover, I do prefer the K1.

Whether a future K1-III or K1-IV will fix or not that loss of detail over the K1 while delivering better noise levels (only at higher ISOs), it remains to be seen. But for me and for now, I'd say that the K1 is better at base ISO overall (zero noise and no difference or slightly better detail) than the K1-II, and I still prefer the more detailed K1 over the less noisy but also less detailed K1-II at higher ISOs.

[Kunzite]

I'm not convinced by the "less detail at base ISO" claim.

[MJKoski]

It might be when dealing with long exposures. Not sure as I have no MK1 to compare with.

But no, I found no issues with normal length exposures at base ISO so far with DNG captures.

[wanderer2]

I was seriously thinking about upgrading, but decided against it.

1. The camera will still be a first generation full frame for Pentax, so even with the improvements it is still a K-1. It will still have 33 focus points.

2. I shoot at ISO 100 more than 99 percent of the time. I have only changed the ISO for about 6 pictures out of the 1,600 or so that I have shot, so the extremely high ISO is not a selling point for me. I will keep using 100 ISO for my railway, truck and landscape photography. I was happy with Kodachrome 64 when I used my LX so if 64 was good for all the years I used SLR's then ISO 100 fine for me now.

3. The cost. It will cost me around $820 CDN once the tax and shipping is factored in, so it means I am paying one third more than the price of a new mark ii. I feel I would rather save that money for a second generation Pentax full frame camera. We don't know how much a second generation camera will cost, but being retired I feel its best for me to try to save as much as I can for the next generation full frame camera.

4. The inconvenience. The upgrade window is at the wrong time of the year.

5. The find the K-1 focus acquisition is faster in the warmer weather. I have not had any focus issues since the temperatures have become warmer. I am going to try to make some kind of a cover for the winter that will cover both the camera and lens, and more than likely design it so I can use a chemical hand warmer with it.

6. I am more than satisfied with the colour. I find that many of my RAW pictures need little to no adjustment. I like the Pentax RAW files better than the Nikon RAW files. I had to do so much adjustment with my Nikon RAW files that I always shot RAW and JPG, and just used the JPG when I shared or printed pictures. I only shoot RAW with the K-1, and am extremely satisfied with the quality.

I plan to upgrade for a reason you did not mention, so I can use the enhanced PSR and shoot some scenes hand held because of time pressures, etc. Currently I shoot a lot of landscapes with PSR but only on a tripod and that's my preference, but sometimes the situation doesn't allow that and hand held than allows capture of a scene I would otherwise miss. At least I hope it works out that way. The $550+ is a lot of money for someone like me on a retirees budget and will delay me getting a lens I want.