K-1II review... Opportunity to get banned on DPR

ogl · 05-07-2018, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by robbiec

Anyone know what program mode do DPR use when testing a camera? Would it be P for Professional like Thom?

Something that shouts RTFM at me is their suggestion to use AF-C in low light scenarios because it will allow you to release the shutter earlier even though accuracy might not be the best. I stopped reading and started skimming then.

Pay attention -
The same situation with PF's tests - loss of details of K-1II. It's pity that there is NR in RAW....
https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/hands-on-reviews/k-1-ii-vs-k-1-noise-image-quality.html

Last edited by ogl; 05-07-2018 at 08:10 PM.

**monochrome** · 05-07-2018, 08:19 PM - **1 Like**

Pentax is like Subaru. If you are familiar with the basic control layout, performance and handling of most other makes (they’re quite similar) driving a Subaru will be a mystery. It will feel wrong and won’t perform to your expectations. But once you ‘get’ Subaru and can anticipate its quirky engineering, performance profile, ride, and controls, driving one makes a lot of sense.

DPR doen’t ‘know’ Pentax so they constantly make mistakes arranging settings, choosing lenses, and building tests expecting performance the other brands take for granted but that is intentionally NOT designed into Pentax. They keep looking for something that wasn’t ever going to be there. They don’t know how to set up a Pentax to maximize its strengths - instead they maximize its weaknesses, then fail it for not meeting their expectations.

What I don’t know is whether they are evil jerks who have a thing about Pentax or just really not very good at what they claim to be.

Rico · 05-07-2018, 09:05 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by ogl

Pay attention -
The same situation with PF's tests - loss of details of K-1II. It's pity that there is NR in RAW....
Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

ogl show me the loss of detail either in the PF test or the DPR test. I am not seeing a loss of detail what I am seeing in the K-1MKII images is better color fidelity. Which is exactly what the Accelerator Unit is supposed to be doing.

madbrain · 05-07-2018, 09:28 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rico

ogl show me the loss of detail either in the PF test or the DPR test. I am not seeing a loss of detail what I am seeing in the K-1MKII images is better color fidelity. Which is exactly what the Accelerator Unit is supposed to be doing.

I see a very clear loss of detail in the first two comparisons at
Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com . In RAW, the difference is not huge, but it is there.
I JPEG, it is quite obvious. The K-1 II version looks blurred. Keep in mind this is a 100% crop.

For all the comparisons that follow, I like the picture of the K-1 II better, both in RAW and JPEG. This is especially true at ISO 12,800 and 25,600 . The text is clearer and more readable (or less unreadable!) in the K-1 II version, and yet has less noise.

One probably would not really use the ISO >51,200 and expect 100% crops to look great.

I just took a bunch of shots at ISO 100 to 819,200 . On my 4K screen, with no crop, there is not a perceptible difference all the way to ISO 51,200 On an HD screen, it would be even less. Even the ISO 102,400 picture is quite usable, if you never look at the 51,200 shot. ISO 204,800 and 409,600 are bad and worse. ISO 819,200 is completely unusable. Not really sure what the point of including those ISOs was.

Rico · 05-07-2018, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by madbrain

I see a very clear loss of detail in the first two comparisons at
Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com . In RAW, the difference is not huge, but it is there.
I JPEG, it is quite obvious. The K-1 II version looks blurred. Keep in mind this is a 100% crop.

The first two comparisons also demonstrate the better color fidelity the K-1MKII has over the K-1. The JPG image in particular it is clear. What you think is blurry is the better color value. The tonal changes are so much better in the K-1MkII JPG over the K-1. Those better tonal values at full screen mean better 3D rendering.

The RAW ISO comparisons the K-1KMII clearly has superior quality starting right from ISO 100. The slider comparison the K-1 side appears like they all were taken using a frosted filter.

Kunzite · 05-07-2018, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by caliscouser

But the score is at a point in time, relative to the competitive landscape. Things move on, there are 2 years between the reviews.

Not necessarily defending DPR by the way. I don't spend much if any time over there.

Yeah, that's their excuse; but it makes no sense: they're offering a tool to compare it with the K-1.

madbrain · 05-07-2018, 11:54 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

Yeah, that's their excuse; but it makes no sense: they're offering a tool to compare it with the K-1.

The thing, they are saying two different things in their review :

1) K-1 II is not competitive vs other cameras today . I think we can make that judgment for ourselves.
Personally, I don't see any other FF DSLR with in-body stabilization on the market today. I would have to spend more money in stabilized lenses with Canon, Nikon or Sony.
Agree the video is not competitive vs Sony. That would have been my second choice, but unfortunately, Sony also has the smallest lens availability of all, and priciest.

2) K-1 II image quality is worse than K-1
That concerns me more, but I don't have a K-1 version 1 to compare with my Mark II . I do have a K-30 and K200D to compare with. It clearly trounces both, and I don't need very elaborate tests to see that.

swanlefitte · 05-07-2018, 11:58 PM

The jpg comparison can be thrown out k1 contrast- high sharpness-hard, k1ii contrast-normal sharpness-normal.
Can we throw out the af test with different lenses?

madbrain · 05-08-2018, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Rico

The first two comparisons also demonstrate the better color fidelity the K-1MKII has over the K-1. The JPG image in particular it is clear. What you think is blurry is the better color value. The tonal changes are so much better in the K-1MkII JPG over the K-1. Those better tonal values at full screen mean better 3D rendering.

Sorry, but putting my eyes inches away from my calibrated 4K monitor, I can clearly see there is less detail in the K-1 II JPG than K-1 . It really looks like what a noise reduction algorithm would do. The colors to me are very close between the two JPEGs.

With the RAW, it's more difficult to tell as it really depends on what the RAW converter is doing. The K-1 II is a new camera. Most software doesn't have an adequate profile that works with it. I would have to download the full RAW files and see what level of detail can be recovered from each file to see if it is really missing from the file, or just not seen in the image as currently developed. The RAW image from the K-1 II appears to be darker compared to the K-1, so it may just be that the detail is there but not seen due to the converter.

Ian Stuart Forsyth · 05-08-2018, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Rico

The first two comparisons also demonstrate the better color fidelity the K-1MKII has over the K-1. The JPG image in particular it is clear. What you think is blurry is the better color value. The tonal changes are so much better in the K-1MkII JPG over the K-1. Those better tonal values at full screen mean better 3D rendering.

One has to be careful when discussing better color fidelity, we first have to know what the color value is of that target and how it differs from the color recorded by the camera

take these 3 images, 1 produced from the K1 jpg one from the K1m2 jpg and the third with the correct color based on the correct values

Kunzite · 05-08-2018, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by madbrain

1) K-1 II is not competitive vs other cameras today . I think we can make that judgment for ourselves.

It's still a $2000 36MP camera. What is its competition, the A7 RII?

madbrain · 05-08-2018, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

It's still a $2000 36MP camera. What is its competition, the A7 RII?

Not sure at the exact same price point. Only the Nikon D750 and 6D Mark II are cheaper as far as body goes.

Fcsnt54 · 05-08-2018, 12:32 AM

Would the lens selection they used be a factor in what everyone is seeing? With out digging more into it, i think i read in the comment section that there were different lenses used between the k1 and k1ii.

house · 05-08-2018, 12:39 AM

Comparing the effort in the say sony a9 review with this one its quite shocking. To be considered a review you can't really go to events paid by the manufacturer and photograph models and objects set up to look good. And then use those photographs in the review. Its not serious.

The K-1 II sample photos look terrible though. The peope colors are really nasty. It could be the lighting and the photographer or the setting (ooc, adobe both) its just quite something.

Anyone not seeing the smudging after iso 800 needs to see the optician. Its really quite drastic. It affects raw.

Thing is Pentax floated the accelerator in the k70 and KP. No one complained, quite the opposite, so they then naturally proceeded to implement it in the K-1 II.

We don't really know the full story with the accelerator. Pentax lack of communication doesn't help. Does it help with autofocus by relieving the image processor etc.

swanlefitte · 05-08-2018, 12:43 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

It's still a $2000 36MP camera. What is its competition, the A7 RII?

They compare it the a7iii d750 and d850 $2000,2300,3300 camera to get the score.
The a7iii is compared to the a7ii, a7riii and d750 and 6dmii. To get its score. It doesn't compare to the d850 so its higher up.
Funny how that happens.

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

05-07-2018, 08:04 PM	#46
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by robbiec Anyone know what program mode do DPR use when testing a camera? Would it be P for Professional like Thom? Something that shouts RTFM at me is their suggestion to use AF-C in low light scenarios because it will allow you to release the shutter earlier even though accuracy might not be the best. I stopped reading and started skimming then. Pay attention - The same situation with PF's tests - loss of details of K-1II. It's pity that there is NR in RAW.... https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/hands-on-reviews/k-1-ii-vs-k-1-noise-image-quality.html Last edited by ogl; 05-07-2018 at 08:10 PM.

05-07-2018, 08:19 PM - 1 Like	#47
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Pentax is like Subaru. If you are familiar with the basic control layout, performance and handling of most other makes (they’re quite similar) driving a Subaru will be a mystery. It will feel wrong and won’t perform to your expectations. But once you ‘get’ Subaru and can anticipate its quirky engineering, performance profile, ride, and controls, driving one makes a lot of sense. DPR doen’t ‘know’ Pentax so they constantly make mistakes arranging settings, choosing lenses, and building tests expecting performance the other brands take for granted but that is intentionally NOT designed into Pentax. They keep looking for something that wasn’t ever going to be there. They don’t know how to set up a Pentax to maximize its strengths - instead they maximize its weaknesses, then fail it for not meeting their expectations. What I don’t know is whether they are evil jerks who have a thing about Pentax or just really not very good at what they claim to be.

05-07-2018, 09:05 PM - 2 Likes	#48
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,205	Originally posted by ogl Pay attention - The same situation with PF's tests - loss of details of K-1II. It's pity that there is NR in RAW.... Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests \| PentaxForums.com ogl show me the loss of detail either in the PF test or the DPR test. I am not seeing a loss of detail what I am seeing in the K-1MKII images is better color fidelity. Which is exactly what the Accelerator Unit is supposed to be doing.

05-07-2018, 09:28 PM - 1 Like	#49
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by Rico ogl show me the loss of detail either in the PF test or the DPR test. I am not seeing a loss of detail what I am seeing in the K-1MKII images is better color fidelity. Which is exactly what the Accelerator Unit is supposed to be doing. I see a very clear loss of detail in the first two comparisons at Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests \| PentaxForums.com . In RAW, the difference is not huge, but it is there. I JPEG, it is quite obvious. The K-1 II version looks blurred. Keep in mind this is a 100% crop. For all the comparisons that follow, I like the picture of the K-1 II better, both in RAW and JPEG. This is especially true at ISO 12,800 and 25,600 . The text is clearer and more readable (or less unreadable!) in the K-1 II version, and yet has less noise. One probably would not really use the ISO >51,200 and expect 100% crops to look great. I just took a bunch of shots at ISO 100 to 819,200 . On my 4K screen, with no crop, there is not a perceptible difference all the way to ISO 51,200 On an HD screen, it would be even less. Even the ISO 102,400 picture is quite usable, if you never look at the 51,200 shot. ISO 204,800 and 409,600 are bad and worse. ISO 819,200 is completely unusable. Not really sure what the point of including those ISOs was.

05-07-2018, 10:09 PM	#50
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,205	Originally posted by madbrain I see a very clear loss of detail in the first two comparisons at Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests \| PentaxForums.com . In RAW, the difference is not huge, but it is there. I JPEG, it is quite obvious. The K-1 II version looks blurred. Keep in mind this is a 100% crop. The first two comparisons also demonstrate the better color fidelity the K-1MKII has over the K-1. The JPG image in particular it is clear. What you think is blurry is the better color value. The tonal changes are so much better in the K-1MkII JPG over the K-1. Those better tonal values at full screen mean better 3D rendering. The RAW ISO comparisons the K-1KMII clearly has superior quality starting right from ISO 100. The slider comparison the K-1 side appears like they all were taken using a frosted filter.

05-07-2018, 11:20 PM	#51
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by caliscouser But the score is at a point in time, relative to the competitive landscape. Things move on, there are 2 years between the reviews. Not necessarily defending DPR by the way. I don't spend much if any time over there. Yeah, that's their excuse; but it makes no sense: they're offering a tool to compare it with the K-1.

05-07-2018, 11:54 PM - 1 Like	#52
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by Kunzite Yeah, that's their excuse; but it makes no sense: they're offering a tool to compare it with the K-1. The thing, they are saying two different things in their review : 1) K-1 II is not competitive vs other cameras today . I think we can make that judgment for ourselves. Personally, I don't see any other FF DSLR with in-body stabilization on the market today. I would have to spend more money in stabilized lenses with Canon, Nikon or Sony. Agree the video is not competitive vs Sony. That would have been my second choice, but unfortunately, Sony also has the smallest lens availability of all, and priciest. 2) K-1 II image quality is worse than K-1 That concerns me more, but I don't have a K-1 version 1 to compare with my Mark II . I do have a K-30 and K200D to compare with. It clearly trounces both, and I don't need very elaborate tests to see that.

05-07-2018, 11:58 PM	#53
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	The jpg comparison can be thrown out k1 contrast- high sharpness-hard, k1ii contrast-normal sharpness-normal. Can we throw out the af test with different lenses?

05-08-2018, 12:04 AM	#54
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by Rico The first two comparisons also demonstrate the better color fidelity the K-1MKII has over the K-1. The JPG image in particular it is clear. What you think is blurry is the better color value. The tonal changes are so much better in the K-1MkII JPG over the K-1. Those better tonal values at full screen mean better 3D rendering. Sorry, but putting my eyes inches away from my calibrated 4K monitor, I can clearly see there is less detail in the K-1 II JPG than K-1 . It really looks like what a noise reduction algorithm would do. The colors to me are very close between the two JPEGs. With the RAW, it's more difficult to tell as it really depends on what the RAW converter is doing. The K-1 II is a new camera. Most software doesn't have an adequate profile that works with it. I would have to download the full RAW files and see what level of detail can be recovered from each file to see if it is really missing from the file, or just not seen in the image as currently developed. The RAW image from the K-1 II appears to be darker compared to the K-1, so it may just be that the detail is there but not seen due to the converter.

05-08-2018, 12:05 AM	#55
Ian Stuart Forsyth Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Somewhere over the rainbow Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,531	Originally posted by Rico The first two comparisons also demonstrate the better color fidelity the K-1MKII has over the K-1. The JPG image in particular it is clear. What you think is blurry is the better color value. The tonal changes are so much better in the K-1MkII JPG over the K-1. Those better tonal values at full screen mean better 3D rendering. One has to be careful when discussing better color fidelity, we first have to know what the color value is of that target and how it differs from the color recorded by the camera take these 3 images, 1 produced from the K1 jpg one from the K1m2 jpg and the third with the correct color based on the correct values

05-08-2018, 12:20 AM	#56
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by madbrain 1) K-1 II is not competitive vs other cameras today . I think we can make that judgment for ourselves. It's still a $2000 36MP camera. What is its competition, the A7 RII?

05-08-2018, 12:28 AM	#57
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by Kunzite It's still a $2000 36MP camera. What is its competition, the A7 RII? Not sure at the exact same price point. Only the Nikon D750 and 6D Mark II are cheaper as far as body goes.

05-08-2018, 12:32 AM	#58
Fcsnt54 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: California Posts: 621	Would the lens selection they used be a factor in what everyone is seeing? With out digging more into it, i think i read in the comment section that there were different lenses used between the k1 and k1ii.

05-08-2018, 12:39 AM	#59
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Comparing the effort in the say sony a9 review with this one its quite shocking. To be considered a review you can't really go to events paid by the manufacturer and photograph models and objects set up to look good. And then use those photographs in the review. Its not serious. The K-1 II sample photos look terrible though. The peope colors are really nasty. It could be the lighting and the photographer or the setting (ooc, adobe both) its just quite something. Anyone not seeing the smudging after iso 800 needs to see the optician. Its really quite drastic. It affects raw. Thing is Pentax floated the accelerator in the k70 and KP. No one complained, quite the opposite, so they then naturally proceeded to implement it in the K-1 II. We don't really know the full story with the accelerator. Pentax lack of communication doesn't help. Does it help with autofocus by relieving the image processor etc.

05-08-2018, 12:43 AM - 1 Like	#60
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	Originally posted by Kunzite It's still a $2000 36MP camera. What is its competition, the A7 RII? They compare it the a7iii d750 and d850 $2000,2300,3300 camera to get the score. The a7iii is compared to the a7ii, a7riii and d750 and 6dmii. To get its score. It doesn't compare to the d850 so its higher up. Funny how that happens.