Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2018, 08:25 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,990
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
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.
If you look at the red PC card in the second set of images, the red is a lot brighter due to the noise being removed form the image, even at ISO 100.

05-02-2018, 08:32 AM   #47
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
If you look at the red PC card in the second set of images, the red is a lot brighter due to the noise being removed form the image, even at ISO 100.
Yes, but does that mean "better" colour 'rendition' / colour 'depth' or just "less noise"? Or is due to a bit different calibration of the white balance regardless there's slight less noise? Besides, like I said I do prefer more detail rather than less noise, especially considering I'm an ISO-100 shooter. Well, that's me.

Once they'll launch a version with less noise WITHOUT the cost of less detail, then that one will be a clear advantage in both areas (or an advantage in one area without being a disadvantage in the other one). Til then it's not clear for me (improving in one aspect at the cost of getting worse in another one is not an improvement).

Last edited by alvaro_garcia; 05-02-2018 at 09:32 AM.
05-02-2018, 09:31 AM - 1 Like   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,990
Well, less noise can give more accurate color because of the lack of random pixel color noise. It didn't look like a white balance issue to me, but I would like to see another test of the same type to get more information on it.
05-02-2018, 09:32 AM   #49
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
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?
Hear, hear.

---------- Post added 05-02-18 at 12:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by tax Quote

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.
Well....in the plant image, maybe so. in the circuit board? I think the K1II is better....

---------- Post added 05-02-18 at 12:42 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I'm not convinced by the "less detail at base ISO" claim.
Agreed

05-08-2018, 09:38 PM   #50
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Fort Frances, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 132
Original Poster
I don't go hog wild when taking pictures, so the K-1 will last a long time for me. I want to purchase the next full frame Pentax camera, keep the K-1 and just have different lenses on the cameras, that way I won't be switching out lenses. Perhaps there will be a brand new model or a new K-1 model that has more dramatic improvements over the first K-1. The K-1 Mk II while improved, still doesn't have what I would call significant improvements that would justify the expense.
05-08-2018, 10:23 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,129
QuoteOriginally posted by GMounk Quote
I don't go hog wild when taking pictures,
There is a cure for that disease!
05-09-2018, 01:23 AM   #52
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mallee Boy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,904
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentax Syntax Quote
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.
Please...PLEASE...post some shots taken with both cameras, same lens / scene side by side comparison etc That would be really helpful.

05-09-2018, 02:05 AM   #53
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by Mallee Boy Quote
Please...PLEASE...post some shots taken with both cameras, same lens / scene side by side comparison etc That would be really helpful.
?

But that's happened, MB, I gave you a link.
05-09-2018, 04:44 AM   #54
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mallee Boy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,904
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
?

But that's happened, MB, I gave you a link.
and thanks (the ones with the sliders?)...but would still like to see some real time landscape / outdoor / brickwall / cat / dog / whatever comparisons.
05-11-2018, 12:51 AM - 2 Likes   #55
Pentaxian
redpit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Greece
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,857
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
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?
+1. Many times I wanted to thank @Photoptimist for his posts! He is a voice of reason and always a pleasure to read. I'm not a native English speaker but I find it always easy to understand his notion and also the technical info he provides in such a wonderful way! So I take advantage of this opportunity of @clackers post to thank Photoptimist publicly! Keep up the great work my friend! We look forward for your posts!
06-12-2018, 02:04 AM   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,129

He has formed the opinion,stick with a K-1 unless firmware enhances the MK ii.
06-12-2018, 03:02 AM   #57
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
I guess I'm getting a K-1 II. My wife shoots weddings and currently uses a K3 as a second camera to our K-1. She wanted a second full frame camera and decided that the K-1 II would work well. We probably won't upgrade our current K-1 unless there is some sort of amazing difference. It is old enough that it too will have to be replaced at some point down the road.

Regardless, the concerns most people have with the K-1 II don't bother me. At low iso, by all accounts, it is the same as the K-1 and that is where I generally shoot landscapes. At high iso, the images are cleaner and if there is a tiny bit less detail, that really isn't important. I'm not a master of noise reduction software by any means and I see it opening up 12K to 25K isos for snap shot purposes of my kids.
06-12-2018, 03:44 AM   #58
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I'm getting a K-1 II. My wife shoots weddings and currently uses a K3 as a second camera to our K-1. She wanted a second full frame camera and decided that the K-1 II would work well. We probably won't upgrade our current K-1 unless there is some sort of amazing difference. It is old enough that it too will have to be replaced at some point down the road.

Regardless, the concerns most people have with the K-1 II don't bother me. At low iso, by all accounts, it is the same as the K-1 and that is where I generally shoot landscapes. At high iso, the images are cleaner and if there is a tiny bit less detail, that really isn't important. I'm not a master of noise reduction software by any means and I see it opening up 12K to 25K isos for snap shot purposes of my kids.
I've said it before in another thread, but having played around with the K-1II's files in Darktable for some considerable time, I believe the detail issue to be largely insignificant in general day-to-day photography, while the superior noise levels are of genuine benefit - even to those with plenty of post-processing noise reduction experience, as the K-1II provides even more headroom for additional noise processing (in my opinion).

If I were buying a full-frame Pentax camera right now, it would most likely be the K-1II...
06-12-2018, 04:26 AM   #59
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
I have had a K-1 Mark II (upgraded from my original now-two-year-old black K-1) for about a week now. There is absolutely nothing about its output which makes me regret the process.

I'll probably keep my Silver Limited K-1 as is - partly for originality, but mainly so I can directly compare the two when I have the time and inclination.

An example. Sure, it's not high art. NO noise reduction.


Darkness
06-12-2018, 05:14 AM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I've said it before in another thread, but having played around with the K-1II's files in Darktable for some considerable time, I believe the detail issue to be largely insignificant in general day-to-day photography, while the superior noise levels are of genuine benefit - even to those with plenty of post-processing noise reduction experience, as the K-1II provides even more headroom for additional noise processing (in my opinion).

If I were buying a full-frame Pentax camera right now, it would most likely be the K-1II...
I agree. When it comes to my wife's clients, they would notice noise a lot quicker than slight loss of detail and the time saved in processing images could be considerable.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
analysis, base, camera, cost, dslr, files, focus, frame, full frame, full-frame, fun, generation, ii, k-1, k1, landscape lens, mk, money, pentax, pentax k-1, pm, post, unit
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I have decided to skip the FF... MF? Wired Pentax Medium Format 25 02-18-2016 04:02 PM
Have decided on the Tamron 10-24mm. So any quirks i should know about? Reportage Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 01-21-2012 06:04 PM
Kx upgrade to K7 or Kr, why or why not? KxBlaze Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 04-06-2011 10:43 AM
Do you have to make EXIF data public on flickr? Why, why not? Banitess Photographic Technique 8 09-24-2010 04:09 AM
Have lurked for awhile, decided to join pshphoto Welcomes and Introductions 2 09-03-2007 03:52 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top