[Tan68]

So the pros - who likely already know about this by being members of truly independent, paid Forums - probably haven’t purchased the K-1 in great numbers and probably won’t purchase the K-1ll. DPReview has no value to them.

But the regular consumers and enthusiasts - people like me - who don’t need and don’t care about this level of detail and wouldn’t know about it if not told about it, but who might actually benefit from the Pentax price / features / value relationship, the very people who need validation and who read DPR for what they think is independent information, will be discouraged from trying Pentax.

Nice job DPR.

Whether they be truly objective, they do a poor job keeping up that appearance. I think they are not objective.
They sure could do with a seminar on how to appear objective and professional and how to remove points of argument so their message is clear. ..or even a short talk at Starbucks during lunch.

[Class A]

They are entirely judging on not the design and function of the camera as the manufacturer envisioned it, but on some all-purpose multi-functional view of what they expect in 2018 (time of this review) for a camera in that price range.

Yes, and the emphasis is on what "they" expect, which is a small, light camera that features very good 4K video.

The downsides that come with their favoured design (EVF, striping, worse battery life, ...) do not matter to them so they are marginalised and typically not even mentioned in reviews. They sometimes run dedicated articles on some of the downsides, but these do not matter one bit when someone consults the reviews to make a purchasing decision.

So I can understand why they'd be disappointed..

I can understand that as well and it would be completely fine for Joe Blog, who runs his own private blog to have his personal preferences and evaluate cameras according to his own personal preferences and in amateurish ways (e.g., not using the same lens when comparing two camera models, let alone choosing one reference lens that could be used on multiple mounts).

The reason why I get angry with DPReview is because I keep mistaking them with a professional review site which tries to do its best to impartially report on various properties and essentially leaves it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about what is a pro or a con to them personally.

The concept of a single score (their percentage figure) is fundamentally flawed because different users have different needs. The weighting that goes into the score should at the very least be adjustable by readers.

[D1N0]

On the plus side. The D FA 50mm F2.8 macro makes the K-1 II beat the crap out of the competition where it comes to sharpness.



Especially noticable on the sides where the FA 77 they tested the K-1 with is soft (by design).

[rodaballo]

I just want to add that I am also a PhD and I do not have any mental disorder or any unavoidable necessity to attack any photography company brand, not even the smaller ones.

---

Last edited by rodaballo; 05-09-2018 at 11:27 AM.

[JohnBee]

K1ii review up. 79%. Raw file massaging via accelerator gets a kicking. AF gets a kicking. Jpeg colours get a kicking. Too heavy, too slow, video is crap, yadda, yadda.

Link to conclusion
Thread title is very tongue in cheek for those that don't get my dry sense of humour

Sorry to sound redundant but how do these topics results in kicking?
ie, does this mean if a person asks questions relative to any of those topics, they will be banned?

[Kunzite]

does this mean if a person asks questions relative to any of those topics, they will be banned?

It appears so

[Rico]

On the plus side. The D FA 50mm F2.8 macro makes the K-1 II beat the crap out of the competition where it comes to sharpness.



Especially noticable on the sides where the FA 77 they tested the K-1 with is soft (by design).

D1N0 I linked to the Image Quality part of the review were the Studio Scene comparison is set up.

I have looked around the comparisons between the 4 cameras and I am seeing no evidence that the K-1MkII has lost details because of over aggressive noise reduction compared to the K-1.

[normhead]

On the plus side. The D FA 50mm F2.8 macro makes the K-1 II beat the crap out of the competition where it comes to sharpness.



Especially noticable on the sides where the FA 77 they tested the K-1 with is soft (by design).

Man, now that's impressive.

[D1N0]

D1N0 I linked to the Image Quality part of the review were the Studio Scene comparison is set up.

I have looked around the comparisons between the 4 cameras and I am seeing no evidence that the K-1MkII has lost details because of over aggressive noise reduction compared to the K-1.

There is a difference:



At iso 800 the k-1 appears sharper, while at iso 100 the K-1 II appears sharper (due to the D fa 50 2.8 instead of the FA 77) I don't think it matters as much hat higher iso's because sharpness is already eaten op by noise more, filtered or not. By iso 3200 i have a hard time choosing. Let's hope Ricoh is able to adjust the firmware so we can select the point at which nr kicks in (if at all). Since it is only applied from a certain point, i think that point must be able to be influenced through firmware. Then it is a best of both worlds situation.

[Oakland Rob]

Folks here have a "relationship" with the k mount. I, personally, have spent several thousand dollars on k mount lenses. That is a lot of money for a hobby photographer with four kids. If Pentax went away tomorrow or just stopped investing R and D money in new K mount cameras, I would have to spend quite a bit of money to switch brands.

As to the whole DP Review review, I think the big thing is that it would be nice if there was consistency in the reviewing process. Cameras like the D850 should be slammed for being big if that's a problem. There needs to be a deep level search for cooking of raws and demote all cameras for those sorts of things -- including Sony's lens adjustments, if they can't be turned off. Overall there needs to be a greater emphasis on real world shooting and printing. MJKoski, you have specific needs for a camera and it seems as though the K-1 II isn't the right one for you. As I recall, the original K-1 (without accelerator chip) wasn't right either. But few of us are shooting the same sorts of things or printing at the size you are and few cameras are up to that challenge. That doesn't mean that all of those cameras that won't hold up to a ten minute exposure or printing to two meters on a side are terrible cameras, but they certainly are the right camera for you.

Yeah, and this is a version 2 of a camera, so of course it invites comparisons with the K-1.

I would actually prefer more subjective analysis, rather than a veneer of precision and pretense toward scientific testing. I saw that in the "bulkiness" comment in the review, and then again in their response to criticisms of that. Rishi said something about "moment arm" as if it weren't anything but subjective, and of course they have no numbers to support the premise that the K-1 is any more front-heavy than any other camera. If they spend more time in English vs Physics class perhaps they'd have the skill to describe their subjective impressions, which could be valid, rather than pretending they have a basis in some measurement.

[Rico]

There is a difference:



At iso 800 the k-1 appears sharper, while at iso 100 the K-1 II appears sharper (due to the D fa 50 2.8 instead of the FA 77) I don't think it matters as much hat higher iso's because sharpness is already eaten op by noise more, filtered or not. By iso 3200 i have a hard time choosing. Let's hope Ricoh is able to adjust the firmware so we can select the point at which nr kicks in (if at all). Since it is only applied from a certain point, i think that point must be able to be influenced through firmware. Then it is a best of both worlds situation.

I don't think the K-1 image is any sharper than the K-1MkII at any ISO level. If you convert them to B&W what you will see is the same sharpness and a lot of K-1 noise. What is evident is the K-1 has terrible noise at all ISO levels compared to the K-1MkII. Look at the grey scale at the top. You can see how much better the color is handled by K-1MKII than all four cameras. It is not less sharp. The color just has better continuous tone.

I have a feeling the the Accelerator Unit is dedicated to just mitigating out the circuitry on top of the light sensitive layer. From what I have seen so far it does an excellent job. Better than the BSI sensors in the Sony and Nikon.

[Rondec]

Yeah, and this is a version 2 of a camera, so of course it invites comparisons with the K-1.

I would actually prefer more subjective analysis, rather than a veneer of precision and pretense toward scientific testing. I saw that in the "bulkiness" comment in the review, and then again in their response to criticisms of that. Rishi said something about "moment arm" as if it weren't anything but subjective, and of course they have no numbers to support the premise that the K-1 is any more front-heavy than any other camera. If they spend more time in English vs Physics class perhaps they'd have the skill to describe their subjective impressions, which could be valid, rather than pretending they have a basis in some measurement.

I guess I would trust them more if they had real photographers shooting and if I didn't have the impression that their impressions are skewed by free gear/trips from camera companies. The Online Photographer doesn't usually do detailed reviews of gear, but gives a better overall feel for how a camera works in the field.

I think most people are aware of how much a full frame SLR weighs and truthfully, the K-1 II isn't significantly heavier than the K-1 and they didn't mention it in that review. I always hate when people pick on details that should be obvious. When they say about a prime lens that it isn't a zoom or isn't wide enough or something like that. If they say about SLR that it doesn't have an EVF or is too heavy.

Oh well, probably time to let it go. DP Review hasn't changed much over time, although they didn't used to be quite so into mirrorless cameras as they are now.

[DennisP]

There is a difference:



At iso 800 the k-1 appears sharper, while at iso 100 the K-1 II appears sharper (due to the D fa 50 2.8 instead of the FA 77) I don't think it matters as much hat higher iso's because sharpness is already eaten op by noise more, filtered or not. By iso 3200 i have a hard time choosing. Let's hope Ricoh is able to adjust the firmware so we can select the point at which nr kicks in (if at all). Since it is only applied from a certain point, i think that point must be able to be influenced through firmware. Then it is a best of both worlds situation.

Interestingly, the ISO 1600 image on the K-1 II looks sharper than the ISO 800 image in that spot you point out above.
So I think it might be a slight focusing error or de-centered lens.
It still matches the K-1 with a tiny bit of sharpening applied in post.
But there are also other areas of the image that seem to favor the K-1 II in the same ISO 800 comparison images.
The point is that the differences are more due to the use of 2 different lenses, each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses, faults, etc, and the camera settings than anything else. For areas with fine line detail, I like the rendering on the K-1 II much better since there is less false color to deal with in post; the usable result after processing is better out of the K-1 II, but in an admittedly minute sense.
At truly high ISO settings like 12800, the K-1 II is better at detail retention, with smoother looking files that respond much better to typical post-processing (sharpening, balancing, color noise reduction).
It's a close call but to alleviate concerns (for the record, I'm not one of the concerned individuals), Pentax should add a firmware setting to either greatly reduce or completely turn off the effect of the signal processor at ISO 12800 and below.

The second point I want to make is the concept of noise reduction as being viewed as a bad thing automatically, if the DPR review and most of the comments are to be taken at face value. I normally agree with this, but in this situation, the noise reduction is as a result of a hardware, not a software algorithm to smear away details. What do others feel about this? My feeling is that it's giving the photographer smoother images that respond slightly better to sharpening and need a lot less color noise reduction, which yields crisper images if you know what you're doing. I can't comment on people that just want to use JPGs straight out of the camera (don't get this at all), or just want to use some "automatic" RAW converter that decides how your images look for you (don't get this approach either).

[Oakland Rob]

Interestingly, the ISO 1600 image on the K-1 II looks sharper than the ISO 800 image in that spot you point out above.
So I think it might be a slight focusing error or de-centered lens.
It still matches the K-1 with a tiny bit of sharpening applied in post.
But there are also other areas of the image that seem to favor the K-1 II in the same ISO 800 comparison images.
The point is that the differences are more due to the use of 2 different lenses, each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses, faults, etc, and the camera settings than anything else. For areas with fine line detail, I like the rendering on the K-1 II much better since there is less false color to deal with in post; the usable result after processing is better out of the K-1 II, but in an admittedly minute sense.
At truly high ISO settings like 12800, the K-1 II is better at detail retention, with smoother looking files that respond much better to typical post-processing (sharpening, balancing, color noise reduction).
It's a close call but to alleviate concerns (for the record, I'm not one of the concerned individuals), Pentax should add a firmware setting to either greatly reduce or completely turn off the effect of the signal processor at ISO 12800 and below.

The second point I want to make is the concept of noise reduction as being viewed as a bad thing automatically, if the DPR review and most of the comments are to be taken at face value. I normally agree with this, but in this situation, the noise reduction is as a result of a hardware, not a software algorithm to smear away details. What do others feel about this? My feeling is that it's giving the photographer smoother images that respond slightly better to sharpening and need a lot less color noise reduction, which yields crisper images if you know what you're doing. I can't comment on people that just want to use JPGs straight out of the camera (don't get this at all), or just want to use some "automatic" RAW converter that decides how your images look for you (don't get this approach either).

Interesting point.

I think the smoother, noise reduced images look more detailed to me, which I admit might be a perceptual thing, as I often focus on text when looking for detail in say a test photo. Kinda like font smoothing I guess; the jaggies to me only give an illusion of detail, like exaggerating sharpness. But if I look at hair it seems some can seem missing. And on one part it seems like there's a canvas-like texture apparently in the K-1ii shot, but it's completely lost in the K-1. But if I download the K-1 and apply NR, which I'd always do with images as noisy as the samples, most of the differences vanish. For me, a better comparison (and discussion of the NR issue) would be the results after normal post processing, and whether the mandatory NR in fact works better than any Topaz, Nik, Adobe or DxO reduction.

[MJKoski]

Rondec, I already have 4x5" as my main system and 8x10" coming when Intrepid works their queue. K-1 is just for dusk/night when I cannot see anything on groundglass anymore.