K-1 ii - upgrade?

**i_trax** · 05-07-2018, 07:40 AM - **1 Like**

Pentax K-1 II Review: Worth the upgrade?: Digital Photography Review
I am not going to upgrade, although DPR was always hard on Pentax

Last edited by BigMackCam; 05-10-2018 at 04:16 AM. Reason: Edited title

normhead · 05-07-2018, 07:49 AM - **2 Likes**

After all the bother about noise at high ISO being so important that I've seen threads where people advocated buying 12MP full frame over a 16 MP APS-c camera for the supposed better high ISO performance, even when the APS-c had a much higher rating on DxO, I refuse to even read this article.

DPR used low light performance to trash Pentax when Pentax was already pretty good at it, now that Pentax has put some money into increasing low light performance, it's not worth upgrading for. You will never see a bunch of more two faced, target changing hypocrites than DPR.

The question is not whether or not everyone should upgrade, the question is who should upgrade. Wedding photographers, come to mind. Every little bit of high ISO performance counts. Anyone doing low light candids on a regular basis or event photography. And I'm completely over the top tired of having to correct the nonsense published over at DPR. It's getting to the point where if I see DPR in a thread, I'm not going to read it, except to ask folks not to repeat what they read over there, over here.

ogl · 05-07-2018, 09:08 AM - **2 Likes**

NR in RAW without the possibility to turn off is the worst thing for RAW shooters. I'm disappointed of such decision for K-1II.

normhead · 05-07-2018, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by ogl

NR in RAW without the possibility to turn off is the worst thing for RAW shooters. I'm disappointed of such decision for K-1II.

You can turn it off, shoot between 100 and 400 ISO. By the time you get to 800 ISO your image is seriously degraded anyway in terms of noise reduction. You haven't established which is worse and for what type of image. What ruins most of your images, noise, or lack of detail? I know what it is for me, it's noise. I rarely need the level of detail I capture with either my K-3 or my K-1. In fact I can show you landscape images where my K-1 and my wife K-5 using the same lens at different focal lengths produce identical landscapes when viewed on a 4k monitor. The extra resolution of the K-1 made no improvement at all to the image.

Folks don't seem to understand that noise is not part of what you were looking at when you framed the image. All noise is artifacts. You may be more comfortable enlarging artifacts but I have taken many images where noise made using sharpening or even adding an appropriate level of contrast was impossible because sharpening, definition and contrast all increase noise artifacts. As well getting to 800 ISO you are going to see decreases in dynamic range becoming factor. I just have no understanding of why people are opposed to deceasing the effect of artificial artifacts cause by the sensor cleanly and efficiently.

I guess astrophotgrpaher would rather see what was there, with a lot of artifacts, tham a cleaned up image that looks more like what was actually there.

Each to heir own I guess, but forgive me if i don't buy in to the hysteria. Don't want the accelerator chip and if you can be happy with the same level of noise control you get on a K-P, fine use a K-1. If you don't like sensor artifacts and choose to give up bit of resolution, which by the way is ridiculous on a K-1, buy a K-ii. You have choices.

Last edited by normhead; 05-07-2018 at 09:58 AM.

**monochrome** · 05-07-2018, 09:41 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by i_trax

Pentax K-1 II Review: Worth the upgrade?: Digital Photography Review
I am not going to upgrade, although DPR was always hard on Pentax

I am*. Mostly because DPR said not to.

* the Mail-in update service.

Kunzite · 05-07-2018, 09:56 AM

After checking the ISO 100 samples, the cards appear slightly out of focus in the K-1 II image (which I doubt it's due to the field curvature of the lens since that's a D FA 50mm f/2.8 macro).
Botched test? It wouldn't be the first time... they did the same for the K-1, too, IIRC (blaming the lens).

**iheiramo** · 05-07-2018, 10:00 AM

Did they miss the focus with mark II on studio test shot? At least to me it looks less sharp on ISO100 than on original K1.

ogl · 05-07-2018, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by normhead

You can turn it off, shoot between 100 and 400 ISO.

Where is the such mode in the setting of K-1II? I can't find it in manual.

biz-engineer · 05-07-2018, 10:49 AM

K1 II is not a new camera model like it is between a 5D III and a 5DIV. K1 II is a K1 with minor tweaks. I wouldn't say K1 II image quality is a step back from the K1, it has pluses and minuses (slightly better color rendering and less noise, at the expense of a bit less sharpness). Of course for owners of a K1, paying the full price for a K1 II is not worth the difference of performance, however, paying $550 maybe worth it for some people no tight on camera budget, it depends. For a new buyer of k mount camera, however, the K1 II might be of interest. As for the performance versus other brands, we don't necessarily need 10 FPS or 45Mpixels to take good pictures, the glass is more important, that's where Ricoh should hurry. IMO, less glass and slightly late camera body don't go well together. At some point the whole system should have some advantages. You can print large before you see a difference between a K1 II and a D850, and eventually the print from a K1 II will look better as a print. DPR guys evaluate cameras like technocrats, absolute zero experienced judgement about the merits of a camera system beside reading technical specifications.

normhead · 05-07-2018, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by iheiramo

Did they miss the focus with mark II on studio

I have seen many images on all sites that try and do comparison testing, where missed focus makes for differences in the images, that probably won't matter in the real world. The most common thing is different focus points. One picture is sharp in one area, the other isn't, but look at a different area the previously unsharp one is now the sharp one and the other isn't. This is also an issue with APS_c and FF comaprisons. Back in the day shooting an FfFand an APS-c at 5.6. the APS-c camera may have had more of the test image in focus and appears sharper, even though the 36MP FF images was sharper at the focus point. So this is not unexpected when taking in such reviews.

ogl · 05-07-2018, 11:14 AM - **1 Like**

It's rather strange to use FF camera till ISO400....

**Mallee Boy** · 05-07-2018, 04:42 PM - **1 Like**

Sadly what all this does is put doubt in peoples minds...and I am one of those. I have cancelled my order of the K1 Mk2, it is a lot of money and I want to spend that on something that is going to help me get better images.
So for now I stay with the K3 Mk2 until this gets sorted out. I had a D800 and let that go because I was not convinced I was getting any better images from that over the K3.
Back on the fence for now.

**monochrome** · 05-07-2018, 05:34 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Mallee Boy

Sadly what all this does is put doubt in peoples minds...and I am one of those. I have cancelled my order of the K1 Mk2, it is a lot of money and I want to spend that on something that is going to help me get better images.
So for now I stay with the K3 Mk2 until this gets sorted out. I had a D800 and let that go because I was not convinced I was getting any better images from that over the K3.
Back on the fence for now.

You’re spot on about introducing doubt - which is probably their objective. I just don’t understand what tiny little Pentax is worthy of so much attention - and is such a threat, and to whom.

Truthfully, for a few moments I wondered whether I should send my K-1 in for the heart transplant. Then I remembered the source of my discomfort.

**kiwi_jono** · 05-07-2018, 06:07 PM

I guess I can't argue with most of the points DPR raised (except for perhaps high ISO performance - its different rather than worse) but certainly I think their conclusion is unwarranted and somewhat unfair.

The conclusion put quite minor points way out of context IMO. Sure its a minor upgrade but its still a step forward.

Regarding high ISO, at some ISOs I like the K1 II better than the others and I doubt that my post processing NR will do any better job. On the other hand its a valid point that you can't turn off the NR - but not enough reason to completely bag the camera as a step backwards IMO.

Certainly I don't like how the Sony A7R III processes its high ISO images - at some ISOs it looks darn right ugly (especially over the people photos where its quite blotchy at times). Yet they bag the K1 II.

**clackers** · 05-07-2018, 06:08 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Mallee Boy

Sadly what all this does is put doubt in peoples minds...and I am one of those. I have cancelled my order of the K1 Mk2, it is a lot of money and I want to spend that on something that is going to help me get better images.
So for now I stay with the K3 Mk2 until this gets sorted out. I had a D800 and let that go because I was not convinced I was getting any better images from that over the K3.
Back on the fence for now.

Somebody of your skills will definitely get better images with the K1 Mk2 vs your existing K3, MB!

05-07-2018, 07:40 AM - 1 Like	#1
i_trax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,621	K-1 ii - upgrade? Pentax K-1 II Review: Worth the upgrade?: Digital Photography Review I am not going to upgrade, although DPR was always hard on Pentax Last edited by BigMackCam; 05-10-2018 at 04:16 AM. Reason: Edited title

05-07-2018, 07:49 AM - 2 Likes	#2
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	After all the bother about noise at high ISO being so important that I've seen threads where people advocated buying 12MP full frame over a 16 MP APS-c camera for the supposed better high ISO performance, even when the APS-c had a much higher rating on DxO, I refuse to even read this article. DPR used low light performance to trash Pentax when Pentax was already pretty good at it, now that Pentax has put some money into increasing low light performance, it's not worth upgrading for. You will never see a bunch of more two faced, target changing hypocrites than DPR. The question is not whether or not everyone should upgrade, the question is who should upgrade. Wedding photographers, come to mind. Every little bit of high ISO performance counts. Anyone doing low light candids on a regular basis or event photography. And I'm completely over the top tired of having to correct the nonsense published over at DPR. It's getting to the point where if I see DPR in a thread, I'm not going to read it, except to ask folks not to repeat what they read over there, over here. Last edited by normhead; 05-07-2018 at 08:25 AM.

05-07-2018, 09:41 AM - 1 Like	#5
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by i_trax Pentax K-1 II Review: Worth the upgrade?: Digital Photography Review I am not going to upgrade, although DPR was always hard on Pentax I am. Mostly because DPR said not to. the Mail-in update service. Last edited by monochrome; 05-07-2018 at 09:59 AM.

05-07-2018, 10:49 AM	#9
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	K1 II is not a new camera model like it is between a 5D III and a 5DIV. K1 II is a K1 with minor tweaks. I wouldn't say K1 II image quality is a step back from the K1, it has pluses and minuses (slightly better color rendering and less noise, at the expense of a bit less sharpness). Of course for owners of a K1, paying the full price for a K1 II is not worth the difference of performance, however, paying $550 maybe worth it for some people no tight on camera budget, it depends. For a new buyer of k mount camera, however, the K1 II might be of interest. As for the performance versus other brands, we don't necessarily need 10 FPS or 45Mpixels to take good pictures, the glass is more important, that's where Ricoh should hurry. IMO, less glass and slightly late camera body don't go well together. At some point the whole system should have some advantages. You can print large before you see a difference between a K1 II and a D850, and eventually the print from a K1 II will look better as a print. DPR guys evaluate cameras like technocrats, absolute zero experienced judgement about the merits of a camera system beside reading technical specifications. Last edited by biz-engineer; 05-07-2018 at 10:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K3-II + V6 II + XT32C + AD200 = HSS frustration :(	morenjavi	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	11	07-29-2017 12:13 AM
Godox AD360 II-N works on Pentax with Cactus V6 II	Reb	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	31	07-17-2017 07:32 AM
Use of Tokina 28-70 AT-X F2.8 Pro II (OR AT-X 270 Pro II)	W.j.christy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	02-15-2017 04:15 PM
New K-3 ii LV failure on a new K-3 ii ?	talkskiwon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	07-25-2016 04:41 PM
Pentax K3 ii vs Canon 5D mark ii	mogge	Welcomes and Introductions	49	03-27-2016 02:39 AM

05-07-2018, 09:08 AM - 2 Likes	#3
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	NR in RAW without the possibility to turn off is the worst thing for RAW shooters. I'm disappointed of such decision for K-1II.

05-07-2018, 09:32 AM	#4
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ogl NR in RAW without the possibility to turn off is the worst thing for RAW shooters. I'm disappointed of such decision for K-1II. You can turn it off, shoot between 100 and 400 ISO. By the time you get to 800 ISO your image is seriously degraded anyway in terms of noise reduction. You haven't established which is worse and for what type of image. What ruins most of your images, noise, or lack of detail? I know what it is for me, it's noise. I rarely need the level of detail I capture with either my K-3 or my K-1. In fact I can show you landscape images where my K-1 and my wife K-5 using the same lens at different focal lengths produce identical landscapes when viewed on a 4k monitor. The extra resolution of the K-1 made no improvement at all to the image. Folks don't seem to understand that noise is not part of what you were looking at when you framed the image. All noise is artifacts. You may be more comfortable enlarging artifacts but I have taken many images where noise made using sharpening or even adding an appropriate level of contrast was impossible because sharpening, definition and contrast all increase noise artifacts. As well getting to 800 ISO you are going to see decreases in dynamic range becoming factor. I just have no understanding of why people are opposed to deceasing the effect of artificial artifacts cause by the sensor cleanly and efficiently. I guess astrophotgrpaher would rather see what was there, with a lot of artifacts, tham a cleaned up image that looks more like what was actually there. Each to heir own I guess, but forgive me if i don't buy in to the hysteria. Don't want the accelerator chip and if you can be happy with the same level of noise control you get on a K-P, fine use a K-1. If you don't like sensor artifacts and choose to give up bit of resolution, which by the way is ridiculous on a K-1, buy a K-ii. You have choices. Last edited by normhead; 05-07-2018 at 09:58 AM.

05-07-2018, 09:56 AM	#6
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	After checking the ISO 100 samples, the cards appear slightly out of focus in the K-1 II image (which I doubt it's due to the field curvature of the lens since that's a D FA 50mm f/2.8 macro). Botched test? It wouldn't be the first time... they did the same for the K-1, too, IIRC (blaming the lens).

05-07-2018, 10:00 AM	#7
iheiramo Unoriginal Poster Join Date: Nov 2016 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 3,182	Did they miss the focus with mark II on studio test shot? At least to me it looks less sharp on ISO100 than on original K1.

05-07-2018, 10:45 AM	#8
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by normhead You can turn it off, shoot between 100 and 400 ISO. Where is the such mode in the setting of K-1II? I can't find it in manual.

05-07-2018, 10:55 AM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by iheiramo Did they miss the focus with mark II on studio I have seen many images on all sites that try and do comparison testing, where missed focus makes for differences in the images, that probably won't matter in the real world. The most common thing is different focus points. One picture is sharp in one area, the other isn't, but look at a different area the previously unsharp one is now the sharp one and the other isn't. This is also an issue with APS_c and FF comaprisons. Back in the day shooting an FfFand an APS-c at 5.6. the APS-c camera may have had more of the test image in focus and appears sharper, even though the 36MP FF images was sharper at the focus point. So this is not unexpected when taking in such reviews.

05-07-2018, 11:14 AM - 1 Like	#11
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	It's rather strange to use FF camera till ISO400....

05-07-2018, 04:42 PM - 1 Like	#12
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	Sadly what all this does is put doubt in peoples minds...and I am one of those. I have cancelled my order of the K1 Mk2, it is a lot of money and I want to spend that on something that is going to help me get better images. So for now I stay with the K3 Mk2 until this gets sorted out. I had a D800 and let that go because I was not convinced I was getting any better images from that over the K3. Back on the fence for now.

05-07-2018, 05:34 PM - 1 Like	#13
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Mallee Boy Sadly what all this does is put doubt in peoples minds...and I am one of those. I have cancelled my order of the K1 Mk2, it is a lot of money and I want to spend that on something that is going to help me get better images. So for now I stay with the K3 Mk2 until this gets sorted out. I had a D800 and let that go because I was not convinced I was getting any better images from that over the K3. Back on the fence for now. You’re spot on about introducing doubt - which is probably their objective. I just don’t understand what tiny little Pentax is worthy of so much attention - and is such a threat, and to whom. Truthfully, for a few moments I wondered whether I should send my K-1 in for the heart transplant. Then I remembered the source of my discomfort.

05-07-2018, 06:07 PM	#14
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	I guess I can't argue with most of the points DPR raised (except for perhaps high ISO performance - its different rather than worse) but certainly I think their conclusion is unwarranted and somewhat unfair. The conclusion put quite minor points way out of context IMO. Sure its a minor upgrade but its still a step forward. Regarding high ISO, at some ISOs I like the K1 II better than the others and I doubt that my post processing NR will do any better job. On the other hand its a valid point that you can't turn off the NR - but not enough reason to completely bag the camera as a step backwards IMO. Certainly I don't like how the Sony A7R III processes its high ISO images - at some ISOs it looks darn right ugly (especially over the people photos where its quite blotchy at times). Yet they bag the K1 II.

05-07-2018, 06:08 PM - 2 Likes	#15
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Mallee Boy Sadly what all this does is put doubt in peoples minds...and I am one of those. I have cancelled my order of the K1 Mk2, it is a lot of money and I want to spend that on something that is going to help me get better images. So for now I stay with the K3 Mk2 until this gets sorted out. I had a D800 and let that go because I was not convinced I was getting any better images from that over the K3. Back on the fence for now. Somebody of your skills will definitely get better images with the K1 Mk2 vs your existing K3, MB!