Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-22-2018, 06:47 AM   #76
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,584
QuoteOriginally posted by tax Quote
Does it mean that subjectively you like the results produced by the original K-1 better than your new K-1 Mk II camera or not?
No, I do not like one more than the other subjectively. It may be like with children. I love them both about equally but each brings out different responses. i do think the II focuses a bit faster and more decisively but that may well just be confirmation bias.

06-22-2018, 07:04 AM   #77
tax
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2017
Photos: Albums
Posts: 113
QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
No, I do not like one more than the other subjectively. It may be like with children. I love them both about equally but each brings out different responses. i do think the II focuses a bit faster and more decisively but that may well just be confirmation bias.
So, you have not noticed any other than "a bit faster" and more decisive focusing K-1 II superiority over K-1 then?
06-22-2018, 07:12 AM   #78
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,584
QuoteOriginally posted by tax Quote
So, you have not noticed any other than "a bit faster" and more decisive focusing K-1 II superiority over K-1 then?
Well, remember, I am not obsessed with such things. I do like the hand held pixel shift but I have not and will not test it against normal mode or tripod ps. At some point I may notice something which tips me one way or another but I avoid constant judgments about things which are, for me, tools for pleasure. If I used them for some scientific research I would want to be sure which gave the better results. For my purposes both are subjectively excellent.
06-22-2018, 07:47 AM   #79
tax
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2017
Photos: Albums
Posts: 113
QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
Well, remember, I am not obsessed with such things. I do like the hand held pixel shift but I have not and will not test it against normal mode or tripod ps. At some point I may notice something which tips me one way or another but I avoid constant judgments about things which are, for me, tools for pleasure. If I used them for some scientific research I would want to be sure which gave the better results. For my purposes both are subjectively excellent.
OK, If I understood you correctly, you bought K-1 II not because you need it or it is superior to K-1, but because you just want it and you could have both cameras.
I guess, please don't take it personally, this is what keeps this country going - people spend money they don't have on things they don't need and finally they end up in our bankruptcy law office filing for chapter 7 or 13.


Last edited by tax; 06-22-2018 at 10:55 AM.
06-22-2018, 08:39 AM - 5 Likes   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,202
Why I decided to upgrade my K-1:



1/5000 ƒ11 ISO8000 DNG Daylight WB Natural

Other than my normal ACR adjustments in PSCS4 there was no post processing on this image.
06-22-2018, 08:40 AM   #81
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
Why I decided to upgrade my K-1:



1/5000 ƒ11 ISO8000 DNG Daylight WB Natural

Other than my normal ACR adjustments in PSCS4 there was no post processing on this image.
...but whyyyyy!
Nice picture though!
06-22-2018, 08:51 AM - 1 Like   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,202
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
...but whyyyyy!
Nice picture though!
That's a simple answer LensBeginner. The K-1 without the Accelerator Unit could not manage such an image.

06-22-2018, 08:59 AM   #83
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
That's a simple answer LensBeginner. The K-1 without the Accelerator Unit could not manage such an image.
Ah so it was a test! now it makes sense.
06-22-2018, 09:28 AM - 1 Like   #84
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,584
QuoteOriginally posted by tax Quote
OK, If I understood you correctly, you bough K-1 II not because you need it or it is superior to K-1, but because you just want it and you could have both cameras.
I guess, please don't take it personally, this is what keeps this country going - people spend money they don't have on things they don't need and finally they end up in our bankruptcy law office filing for chapter 7 or 13.
I am sorry, Tax, but your lecture is way off base. I have spent my life carefully analyzing decisions of myself and of others. I am here for fun . I owe you no explanation. Your analysis is baseless, silly and inappropriate on a photography forum. I won't respond again. Your fun is simply corrosive.
06-22-2018, 11:10 AM   #85
tax
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2017
Photos: Albums
Posts: 113
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
That's a simple answer LensBeginner. The K-1 without the Accelerator Unit could not manage such an image.
Could you please elaborate a bit more, why the same result cannot be achieved without the Accelerator Unit on a plain K-1 even as a test? Am I missing something?

---------- Post added 06-22-18 at 11:27 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
I am sorry, Tax, but your lecture is way off base. I have spent my life carefully analyzing decisions of myself and of others. I am here for fun . I owe you no explanation. Your analysis is baseless, silly and inappropriate on a photography forum. I won't respond again. Your fun is simply corrosive.
Mikesul, I am not lecturing anyone. I just try to collect as much technical information as possible regarding K-1 vs K-1 II. This is the only analysis I am trying to do in here to make the right decision on my K-1 upgrade. It appears, that your selection and purchase of K-1 II was not based on is technical superiority over K-1, and you may have some emotional rather than rational attachments to both cameras. Which is perfectly fine with me. I am here for fun as well, but if you don't understand my tax and bankruptcy related professional jokes, not related to you in any way, please just ignore them. Please have all the fun you can handle.

Last edited by tax; 06-22-2018 at 11:38 AM.
06-22-2018, 11:36 AM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,722
I think I'm in the same boat, going to wait for the second generation to upgrade. Difference is just large enough for an upgrade, especially with a 50 1.4 coming out in near enough future, that would be a big purchase if I decide I'm getting one
06-22-2018, 01:07 PM - 1 Like   #87
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,202
QuoteOriginally posted by tax Quote
Could you please elaborate a bit more, why the same result cannot be achieved without the Accelerator Unit on a plain K-1 even as a test? Am I missing something?

---------- Post added 06-22-18 at 11:27 AM ----------



Mikesul, I am not lecturing anyone. I just try to collect as much technical information as possible regarding K-1 vs K-1 II. This is the only analysis I am trying to do in here to make the right decision on my K-1 upgrade. It appears, that your selection and purchase of K-1 II was not based on is technical superiority over K-1, and you may have some emotional rather than rational attachments to both cameras. Which is perfectly fine with me. I am here for fun as well, but if you don't understand my tax and bankruptcy related professional jokes, not related to you in any way, please just ignore them. Please have all the fun you can handle.
tax the Accelerator Unit is delivering exactly what Ricoh/Pentax said it would be doing "effectively suppresses noise and reproduces fine-details with rich colors even at high ISO levels".

The K-1 could never produce at ISO8000 the image I posted. Even at ISO8000 the light and shadow transitions for all the different hues of green of the leafs maintains a consistent uniformity of color and value that delivers a better sense of space. At ISO8000 the K-1 those same type of areas become splotchy brown muddy color noise which flattens the image.

The Accelerator Unit delivers better files starting at ISO100. There is a more natural 3D quality. There is better spatial presence due to the better color fidelity delivered through the Accelerator Unit.
06-22-2018, 06:13 PM - 1 Like   #88
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,335
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
Why I decided to upgrade my K-1:



1/5000 ƒ11 ISO8000 DNG Daylight WB Natural

Other than my normal ACR adjustments in PSCS4 there was no post processing on this image.
Damn, now you have me considering the upgrade of my K1 again. It's all your fault, and thats the story I'm telling my wife too.
I was going to use that $550 towards my LBA... grrr... decisions decisions...
Eric
06-24-2018, 11:38 AM   #89
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
david94903's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Rafael, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 806
QuoteOriginally posted by Erictator Quote
Damn, now you have me considering the upgrade of my K1 again. It's all your fault, and thats the story I'm telling my wife too.
I was going to use that $550 towards my LBA... grrr... decisions decisions...
Eric

Same
07-13-2018, 11:48 AM   #90
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
Why I decided to upgrade my K-1:



1/5000 ƒ11 ISO8000 DNG Daylight WB Natural

Other than my normal ACR adjustments in PSCS4 there was no post processing on this image.
Thanks for the image, but before we get too excited, this image could have been just as effectively taken at 1/750sec with ISO around 2000, which the K-1 would have been able to handle quite nicely. If this were, however a rally sportscar going at speed, or a motorbike, or a stop-motion cricket or baseball action shot, the justification would have been on the money. For this shot, the shutter speed was superfluous. So where it really matters is indeed at high ISO (low light or fast action) but where most people need the advances are in the more used ISOs of 100-800. The comparisons so far are seemingly in favour of K-1 II even with the apparent lack of microcontrast detail, but perhaps those differences are a matter of taste.
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 11:39 PM. | 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