Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-10-2018, 10:16 AM - 3 Likes   #166
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,321
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
No one expected DPR to provide anything other than a half-hearted review of the K-1 II.

Interesting that DPR say they asked RAW image experts Iliah Berg and Bill Claff to analyse the K-1 II's RAW files for evidence of NR. It would be good to see their work on this.
Sorry, but I did expect more than a half-hearted review from DPR and we got a lot more than something half-hearted.
DPR had a full review of K1 II quite fast after release
They were a lot more careful with their bike test
They explained well what they found and how they put scores....
There is a lot of truth in their review and lookign at this thread, there is a lot of subjective talk by forum members here and not many objective arguments anymore.

DPR is not the only source of information. Compare additional reviews and opinions to get a complete picture if you like - compare your friends gear to your to make up your mind.

05-10-2018, 10:23 AM   #167
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,088
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
True, and I have always said, good pictures don't come from high ISO. Yet people continue to harp on the benefits of high ISO images. In these discussions, minute bits of resolution are proclaimed to be worth switching brands for, while larger issues like the loss of resolution due to increased noise, loss fo Dynamic Range and colour depth are ignored as if they don't exist.

Back in the day (k-5 vs D800) I posed the question "How can you compare high ISO settings and claim one is better than the other, when at 100 ISO they are practically identical and the high ISO image is never as good as the 100-400 ISO image?"

The question has never even been adressed though asked a hundred times. When high ISO comes with the same dynamic range, colour depth and resolution as lower ISO images, I may be more inclined to pay attention to these things.

But to be blunt, the argument is over which crap image is better, when any neutral observer would say, I'm not switching brands so my crap images will be slightly better than someone else's crap images. I trash all crap images. And I certainly don't make camera purchasing decisions based on them. The only thing that matters to me is what is the highest ISO I can get a decent image from? That's gone from 400 ISO with the K20D to 3200 ISO on the K-1.What happens at 102,000 ISO is of little interest.
normhead there is some utility in higher ISO when converting to B&W. This is one of the things that is so promising with the K-1MKII the files as high as ISO12800 maintain cleaner tonal range which create better B&W grey tone transitions.
05-10-2018, 10:24 AM - 1 Like   #168
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,937
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Both bad. 12800 is not for 1:1 viewing. At least nr reduces jpeg size.
With these sort of isos it is best to contemplate at what size you could actually print/view it. My guess would be that A5 and smaller probably would look OK at iso 12K. Certainly there isn't going to be great detail in either image. The smoothing may help with the K-1 II image, but as you say, neither one is great.

My guess is that this is the sort of iso that you are using for journalism/sports where you are attempting to freeze motion in sub-optimal light and if you capture the action, people will wink at the fact that dynamic range isn't great and there is some noise in the final image. And for family snap shots, who really cares?
05-10-2018, 10:34 AM   #169
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 631
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Are you in the middle of making a purchasing decision? Is that why this is relevant?
Well, I love my Pentax K-1. I wanted to update it to K-1 MKII for PS and NR especially.
K-1 seems to be isovariant, not the K-1 II. That is disturbing, paying 500€ for an update that is not obviously better in every circumstances with RAW files I mean, isn't it?
I like better K-1 than Canon EOS 5DMKIV, Nikon D850 and Sony's cameras (except A7xIII I never tried... but I do not like EVF, a retina killer that no one speaks about!). Should I still like K-1 MKII? That's my question...

05-10-2018, 10:55 AM   #170
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
ISO invariant? Is that a thing? Did you guys just make that up? Maybe you could show some test images, done by someone with an ounce of credibility to explain what you're talking about. What exactly is the problem. And don't even try and post MJKloski's evidence. The guy can't tell the difference between sharpness and contrast. I have long under-exposed and pushed both film and digital to increase contrast and the accompanying perception of sharpness so I understand what he did, and i also understand why it doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

I'm still looking for some evidence to let me think this might be a real thing.

Last edited by normhead; 05-10-2018 at 11:03 AM.
05-10-2018, 11:16 AM - 3 Likes   #171
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,368
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
True, and I have always said, good pictures don't come from high ISO. Yet people continue to harp on the benefits of high ISO images. In these discussions, minute bits of resolution are proclaimed to be worth switching brands for, while larger issues like the loss of resolution due to increased noise, loss fo Dynamic Range and colour depth are ignored as if they don't exist.

Back in the day (k-5 vs D800) I posed the question "How can you compare high ISO settings and claim one is better than the other, when at 100 ISO they are practically identical and the high ISO image is never as good as the 100-400 ISO image?"

The question has never even been adressed though asked a hundred times. When high ISO comes with the same dynamic range, colour depth and resolution as lower ISO images, I may be more inclined to pay attention to these things.

But to be blunt, the argument is over which crap image is better, when any neutral observer would say, I'm not switching brands so my crap images will be slightly better than someone else's crap images. I trash all crap images. And I certainly don't make camera purchasing decisions based on them. The only thing that matters to me is what is the highest ISO I can get a decent image from? That's gone from 400 ISO with the K20D to 3200 ISO on the K-1.What happens at 102,000 ISO is of little interest.
Sometimes a low ISO image is simply impossible. The photographer has no tripod, they can't use a flash, the lighting is low, subject is moving, a small aperture is needed to get DoF.

It's night 50% of the time of this planet, it's cloudy much of the time, people are indoors most of the day, it's usually dim on the forest floor, most scenes contain stuff a range of distances, and lots of stuff moves. And then there's need for high DR which is just as much a problem at sunset as at moonrise.

Bottom line is that the majority of all the possible photographs one might take in this world require higher ISO (and high DR at all ISOs). For most of the history of photography, photographers could not take photographs except in ideal sunny f/16 conditions because film was notoriously insensitive to light (film wastes about 97% of the light). Early digital cameras were worse than film in this regard. It's only in the past few years that the equipment has improved.

But most photographers are still locked in a mindset driven by the inadequate equipment of the past. Most photographers think they don't care about 102,400 ISO because they never take 102,400 ISO pictures. But they never take 102,400 ISO pictures because they don't have equipment that can take 102,400 ISO pictures. They unwittingly lose most of the pictures they could take because they believe such pictures can't work. But that's changing.

I, for one, care about 102,400 ISO because I know how many more photos I could take, how much more freedom I'd have to pick narrower apertures or faster shutter speeds, and how much more DR I could get from all ISOs.
05-10-2018, 11:54 AM - 1 Like   #172
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,088
QuoteOriginally posted by Andrea K Quote
Due different lens the DPR test isn't valid, neither to say that Mk I is better than Mk II nor to say the opposite. In my test, that you can download at the linked post, I removed all variables apart, obviously, the lens, the focus and the shaking. For this reason they are not images that can lead to a result, in any sense.
Andrea K I don't think the test is invalid. On a whole they get the scene centered and the focal point close enough to make general comparisons between brands. I find it very useful. I don't expect everything to be exactly the same. After all it is a scene with 3D objects. Things move over time. I can not fault DPR for that.

As I have said the DPR Studio Scene comparison contradicts the takeaway claims DPR is making about the K-1MKII concerning "noise reduction" removing detail as ISO increases. The image you posted shows that. In those ISO12800 images look at the lower left corner of the color chart where you can see the grey background against the corner. Which camera holds more detail? The Sony and Nikon at ISO 12800 you can no longer even tell the corner of the color chart is even there the noise levels obliterate the distinction between the color chart and the grey background.

It has nothing to do with the test being invalid. It has everything to do with how the Accelerator Unit is handling the information better.
05-10-2018, 12:29 PM - 1 Like   #173
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 631
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
ISO invariant? Is that a thing? Did you guys just make that up? Maybe you could show some test images, done by someone with an ounce of credibility to explain what you're talking about. What exactly is the problem. And don't even try and post MJKloski's evidence. The guy can't tell the difference between sharpness and contrast. I have long under-exposed and pushed both film and digital to increase contrast and the accompanying perception of sharpness so I understand what he did, and i also understand why it doesn't mean what he thinks it means.
I'm still looking for some evidence to let me think this might be a real thing.
I am very sorry, but I am not sure I have been rude nor impolite with you.
I do not really like the way you are talking to me whatever I said. I must be a french arrogant froggy anyway... Have a nice day.

05-10-2018, 02:31 PM   #174
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,887
QuoteOriginally posted by teiki arii Quote
K-1 seems to be isovariant, not the K-1 II.
I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion.

QuoteOriginally posted by teiki arii Quote
That is disturbing, paying 500Ä for an update that is not obviously better in every circumstances with RAW files I mean, isn't it?
You are jumping to conclusions. The Mk ii might be the wrong camera for an artist such as MJKoski; he doesn't have the same requirements as others professionals, such as those who cover news and/or sports and are required to submit JPEG results within minutes.
05-10-2018, 02:33 PM - 3 Likes   #175
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: VA
Posts: 17
QuoteOriginally posted by SSGGeezer Quote
Nice to see you here!
I do have a question though, why did you say based on the DPR "review" that you needed to go test for a "Star eater: when the results were nothing like the Sony's smearing? Did you not think that it might be a little inflammatory to even use that term without testing first?

Serious questions, and since you are here and I dislike the attitude at DPR, and I will probably never register I figured I would ask you here. Thanks.
Iím a long time pentax user who woke up Monday morning to the DPR review and now has a week+ to confirm I want the mark 2 over the mark 1. I shoot primarily landscapes/starscapes these days but sprinkle in a little of action and wildlife photography when I can.

I wasnít thinking about it in depth yet. I saw the reviews comments about noise reduction and immediately thought of the situation where I would want the most noise control, astrophotography. I also remembered a thread on this forum regarding concern about k-1ii performance with regulars to star eating.

Most sadly of all it looks like the weather will be lousy this weekend meaning I wonít be able to test it. I AM excited that I have a work around to test it thought (as I said previously).

---------- Post added 05-10-2018 at 05:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion.


You are jumping to conclusions. The Mk ii might be the wrong camera for an artist such as MJKoski; he doesn't have the same requirements as others professionals, such as those who cover news and/or sports and are required to submit JPEG results within minutes.
The iso invariance conclusion comes from:
Re: K1 ll review is up and I think that..: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Itís been referred to this way multiple times over the years iirc.
05-10-2018, 02:51 PM - 2 Likes   #176
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,368
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
It is proof of smoothing.
It's only proof of smoothing under two conditions:

1) the scene is indistinguishable from noise.

2) the accelerator is a linear filter.

AFAIK, those FFT tests only looked at noise images. They never tested it on a signal so they can't say what it's going to do with a signal.
05-10-2018, 02:57 PM - 2 Likes   #177
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,619
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
When high ISO comes with the same dynamic range, colour depth and resolution as lower ISO images, I may be more inclined to pay attention to these things.
Yesterday's ISO 800 (eg on the K-x) is today's ISO 3200 (eg on the K-1).

If every scene, every lighting scenario, and every lens in the world let us all take photos that never needed to go past ISO 800 when shooting 1/500 sec, we'd never be having this discussion. But real life shooting ain't like that. So for some shooters it's certainly worth paying attention to the ongoing march of high ISO performance in cameras.
05-10-2018, 03:58 PM   #178
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
QuoteOriginally posted by Shivaess Quote

The iso invariance conclusion comes from:
Re: K1 ll review is up and I think that..: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

It’s been referred to this way multiple times over the years iirc.
This is the way the world works these days.

QuoteQuote:
It does appear that the K-1 II
QuoteQuote:
is ISO Invariant below ISO 640.
So, if you shoot raw and post process shooting at ISO 500 and pushing (within reason) later might be a good strategy.
Some one says something "appears to be true." and therefore something "might" be a good strategy.

And a bunch of people start talking like it is true, and test the solution. Internet wisdom at it's best.

Well, don't guess, if you think something is true, prove it. Don't speculate based on a speculation.
And post irrefutable evidence that everyone can agree on. If that was your proof, it's sorely lacking.

And personally, it's my opinion that people should be banned from the site for quoting DPR over here. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

Last edited by normhead; 05-10-2018 at 04:06 PM.
05-10-2018, 04:14 PM - 1 Like   #179
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,621
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
It's only proof of smoothing under two conditions:

1) the scene is indistinguishable from noise.

2) the accelerator is a linear filter.

AFAIK, those FFT tests only looked at noise images. They never tested it on a signal so they can't say what it's going to do with a signal.
Excellent point.

The test is not measuring smoothing (reduction of detail), but noise. This is a fact. Extending the conclusion of a test that measures one parameter to a different parameter should be regarded with extreme suspicion.
Unless there's some hard proof that they're correlated?
05-10-2018, 04:29 PM   #180
Journeyman Cat Wrangler
Loyal Site Supporter
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Maine, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,738
QuoteOriginally posted by Shivaess Quote
Iím a long time pentax user who woke up Monday morning to the DPR review and now has a week+ to confirm I want the mark 2 over the mark 1. I shoot primarily landscapes/starscapes these days but sprinkle in a little of action and wildlife photography when I can.

I wasnít thinking about it in depth yet. I saw the reviews comments about noise reduction and immediately thought of the situation where I would want the most noise control, astrophotography. I also remembered a thread on this forum regarding concern about k-1ii performance with regulars to star eating.

Most sadly of all it looks like the weather will be lousy this weekend meaning I wonít be able to test it. I AM excited that I have a work around to test it thought (as I said previously).

---------- Post added 05-10-2018 at 05:39 PM ----------



The iso invariance conclusion comes from:
Re: K1 ll review is up and I think that..: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Itís been referred to this way multiple times over the years iirc.
Thanks for the well reasoned reply!

I was wondering since you are a long time member there and some of the old timers love to troll Pentax both here and there. (Usually guys with older gear who would never buy what they are trolling, even if it was perfect in every way.)

Most of the time I just see wild (but insulting,) guesses from a lot of the folks in the DPR comments so again, thanks for the answer.
Closed Thread

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!
dslr, full frame, full-frame, hardware, ii, k-1, k1, kicking, lens, lot, model, panasonic, pentax, pentax k-1, quality, rate, release, screen, sony, successor, upgrade, upgrades, video, yadda
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
an opportunity: Super Blue Blood Moon aslyfox General Photography 37 01-31-2018 10:23 PM
where and how to find " wild life " photography opportunity aslyfox General Photography 37 08-21-2017 01:20 PM
Another "Supermoon" Opportunity RobA_Oz General Photography 8 12-28-2016 11:11 PM
Banned on DPR, anyone else? KL Matt General Talk 44 11-22-2013 03:51 PM
Keep K-x buy premium lens, get K-r and get good lens, get the K-7 w/ lens or K-5? crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 02-06-2011 10:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 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