[madbrain]

BTW, I looked at DPR's comparison pictures before I ordered my K-1 II . I found that in almost every case, the K-1 II looked better than the K-1 .

There is evidence of errors in their tests. They didn't photograph the same exact target.

For example :

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

You will see the peacock feather missing in the K-1 and 5D Mark IV test shots, but they are present in K-1 II and A7R III .

Other things don't make sense . For example, the top-right corner :

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

On the K-1 II , it looks out of focus. Not sure if this is the result of a bad lens or improper focusing, but certainly it's hard to think it has anything to do with the body when you compare the bottom corners :

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

No perceptible difference in focus/sharpness in those, IMO.

Top left corner again looks softer on Pentax :

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Really difficult to say why the body has anything to do with it. Sounds more like a focus/alignment problem.

As far as foliage goes, the one in the top-right looks significantly more blurred on the K-1 II .
Image comparison: Digital Photography Review


But if you look at foliage in low-light in the bottom left corner, the K-1 II looks great to me, and it's the K-1 that does the worst of all 4 cameras :
Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

I have clicked over that target a lot more places. In the vast majority of them, I find the image from the K-1 II superior to the K-1, with both less noise but not less sharpness.
The main exceptions appear to be in the upper right corner. I have checked other ISOs as well but for this discussion I focused on 25,600 .
It's hard to believe those issues have anything to do with the body, unless there is maybe a faulty sensor in that area, wrong focus, smudges on the lens, etc.

My 2 cents, anyway.

[pid]

First I think, the K1II is not expensiver than the K1 was before. The K1II is as good as the K1. The K1II has some kind of improvments. The K1 is still a very good cam with a similar IQ to the K1II. The K1 is now cheaper as the K1II.
Second thought: you can buy both cameras and will be happy. The Upgrade is a little bit to expensive, but a friendly idea from Ricoh for those who will get the newest standard from Ricoh.
Third thought: you buy a camara as it is. No firmwareupdate makes a new camera out of it. Sometimes some little improvements can be made or little features can be added. Most times the camera does not feel like an other camera afterwards.
So if you have a K1 be happy. If you dont have a k1 buy one for a really good price for an FF cam. If you want the little improvements buy the K1II and be also happy. Both are woth every penny and can make a lot of fun and produce very good pictures.
So what is the problem?

[Jonathan Mac]

I was surprised to see their conclusion this morning. DPR have always been anti-Pentax but less so in the last few years so it was a bit of a shock to see such a poor rating for the K-1 mkII. They are always critical of baked-in noise reduction though, which I can understand, but maybe they're going too far in this case. I'd have to see a good, extensive comparison to be sure.

Given that the three big changes are the pre-processor, hand-held high res mode and improved AF and the first two of those seem to be either detrimental or of little use, if I were buying a FF now I'd probably err on the safe side and go for the mark I, even at the risk of finding out later that the complaints are over-blown.

As usual, they comment on the great build quality but then complain that it's heavy, as if they weren't two sides of the same coin. They're too used to the flimsy build quality of other brands.

There's the usual DPR over-emphasis on video as well. And as usual with Pentax, they comment on the usefulness of unique features of Pentax (screen, LEDs, build quality, horizon correction etc etc) (and all of that while still being significantly cheaper than most competition) but don't seem to award them any points at the end for the inclusion of those same features.

[madbrain]

First I think, the K1II is not expensiver than the K1 was before.

It's actually about $200 more expensive than the K-1 at introduction. But it's not a huge difference.

---------- Post added 05-08-18 at 01:44 AM ----------

Given that the three big changes are the pre-processor, hand-held high res mode and improved AF and the first two of those seem to be either detrimental or of little use, if I were buying a FF now I'd probably err on the safe side and go for the mark I, even at the risk of finding out later that the complaints are over-blown.

DPS can't be detrimental - if you don't like it, just don't use it.

As usual, they comment on the great build quality but then complain that it's heavy, as if they weren't two sides of the same coin. They're too used to the flimsy build quality of other brands.

Agree. I bought a K-I II last week. Was afraid I wouldn't be happy carrying such a heavy camera. But in fact I carried for a day in Napa on saturday it along with the battery grip, 6 AA eneloop pros in it, the D FA 28-105, Sigma 70-300, and 3 prime lenses in the bag, and it was no problem .

There's the usual DPR over-emphasis on video as well.

Personally, I think that's fair given that the competition is doing more - especially Sony with the A7 III at the same price.
I would love for my K-1 II to do 4K video. I have given up on Pentax video, though. I bought a mirrorless GX85 a couple months ago, and it does great 4K video. Doesn't take much more space than one large full frame zoom, too. And if you compare the price of one Sony body and the expensive lenses to go with it, vs a Pentax FF for stills + Panasonic m4/3 for video, the equation is still in favor of the later due to the high Sony lens prices. And the Sony is not stabilized, whereas both Pentax and Panasonic bodies are.

And as usual with Pentax, they comment on the usefulness of unique features of Pentax (screen, LEDs, build quality, horizon correction etc etc) (and all of that while still being significantly cheaper than most competition) but don't seem to award them any points at the end for the inclusion of those same features.

I have to say the K-1 II screen is a little silly with the inability to tilt fully backwards, like a camcorder screen. I will miss that from my old Canon HG21 camcorder which I sold today. My Panasonic GX85 screen can't tilt backwards either, sadly. I couldn't afford both a K-1 II and GH5/GH5s. If I had to spend $2000 on each still & video body - $4000 total, I would probably just buy a Sony instead, with its expensive lenses. Fortunately, the GX85 4K video is more than good enough for my needs. And in one important way (for me), its video is better than Sony : no 30 minute video recording limit. GX85 would be perfect if it had an IR remote and fully tiltable screen, both of which are on the GH5/GH5s, but I couldn't justify the extra $1000 - $1500 just for those 2 features..

---

Last edited by madbrain; 05-08-2018 at 01:46 AM.

[bavd]

The fact that they put so much emphasis on video performance says it all. I have never used a dslr to shoot video and i do not think that is what they are meant for. Want to shoot great video, buy a dedicated video camera! For a few hundred dollar you will get one that'll outperform any dslr. If you want an apparatus to photograph and video your kids and or grandchildren playing in the yard with the dog, buy a smartphone!

[madbrain]

The fact that they put so much emphasis on video performance says it all. I have never used a dslr to shoot video and i do not think that is what they are meant for. Want to shoot great video, buy a dedicated video camera!

DSLRs certainly weren't meant for video originally, but things have evolved. DSLRs compete with mirrorless interchangeable cameras too, which are great at video, but MILC cost more than just a couple hundred if you want a good one. I shoot video mostly indoor on tripod where the benefit of a full frame sensor could be realized, but currently the video on the K-1 II is mainly limited by the low bit rate and HD resolution Some movies released in theaters have been shot on DSLRs. For that matter, I saw a movie in a theater that was shot on an iPhone recently. Anyway, I did a shootout last week between 5 different cameras. The best and cheapest was a $500 MILC.

Mirrorless 4k video option for Pentax lenses - Page 6 - PentaxForums.com

IMO, Pentax could stand to improve things. The K-1 II is much better at video than my K-30, but that was a low bar to clear.

[pid]

It's actually about $200 more expensive than the K-1 at introduction. But it's not a huge difference.

Sorry, but the price of the K1 rised about 200$ after introduction because of Yen! So the K1II is not one $ more expensive as the old price of the K1 was.

[madbrain]

Sorry, but the price of the K1 rised about 200$ after introduction because of Yen! So the K1II is not one $ more expensive as the old price of the K1 was.

Not sure how much sense that explanation makes given that the K1 is not manufactured in Japan. Anyway, there is about a $300 difference between K1 and K1 II today.

[monochrome]

There are three main takeaways from their review which don’t depend on their show-card studio tests no matter how ham-fisted (I think their tests are crude and ghastly, btw). These are

Their explanation of why they used the DFA50/2.8 Macro is laughable. Clearly they should use the same lens to highlight the differences in a mere update.

Baked-in NR in RAW which cannot be switched off and which seems to be quite aggressive (per Bill Claff's own tests)

I can’t argue. I can’t define or compare ‘quite aggressive’. I agree the all-or-nothing condition will keep me from upgrading early until I can see whether the difference is discernible in final prints.

AF is only very slightly improved

I think stationary AF with newer lenses is fast and accurate, but they don’t say that. To them every camera must have fast, accurate, Tracking AF with OVF Face-Detection. At $2,000 the K-1 will never have that technology.

Hand-held pixel shift is a mixed bag

I think a mixed bag is better than no bag. On the K-1 Special Site the professional shooter who wrote the commentary said it isn’t perfect but 75% of the time it is better than none at all. Had DPR said that it would be good enough for me.

Since the KI Mark II is an incremental upgrade, no one should have been expecting fireworks anyway. It’s a mid-term refresh, it’s good to have and nothing wrong with that.

A lot of the rest comes down to Ricoh’s decision not to put resources into marketing, imo. If there is no one to set the agenda, then the press sets it for you. If there is no one to establish good relations with key influencers, then there are no relations with them. There’s not even a phone number. If there is no one to write solid “boss copy” and establish a product’s strengths, then the press will come up with their own list of those which usually means weaknesses. And the result is a tabloidesque field day. It’s all a bit predictable. One example: babbling about video when it's clear this is a very low priority for Ricoh but babble they will if no one is there to give them a firm steer.

The answer to the NR bakery is a setting switch like “On, Low, Med, Hi, Off”. So long as Ricoh see the NR issue as a bug not a feature. Has anyone menu-dived with the K1 Mark II? Maybe there is already a setting for this. It wouldn't surprise me. And I suspect that for many or even most customers, who never visit camera websites anyway, the matter is largely a non-issue.

What remains is that if you put the K1 Mark II into the hands of Don McCullin he would return with utterly stunning images - not the kind of simple point one is ever going to see from a reviewer on DPR.

Marketing such as you suggest costs money. People who buy Pentax would complain if marketing money was baked into the prices of the cameras.

I use my K-1 with manual lenses at low ISO, handheld mostly. It’s a hobby thing and I’m happy with that and the money I have in the camera and lenses. I’m not all worked up about the DPR conclusions. Nothing in the Cons column is untruthful. I cannot abide their aggressive language and choice of adjectives, but that’s nothing new. Imaging Resource will make the same conclusions using much more forgiving text. I use my KP for casual shooting of grandchildren, indoors, travel - and with the Accelerator Unit I get nice OOC jpeg’s at ISO 6400. I always debate whether I should have two bodies and DA Limited lenses, but K-1 combined with KP covers my needs. I understand the benefits and limitations of both cameras and made a rational purchase decision.

I really don’t have the energy to comment there and not even much here. DPR has exhausted me.

My son and I shot his toddler children running around my backyard together Sunday, he with a 7D and fast 24-70, I with KP and 28-105. After carefully turning off every computational feature and setting AF.c just right, using Live View I could keep up. In OVF I was outclassed. K-1 with D FA24-70 would have been hopeless. No surprises there. K-1 wasn’t built for that. But most users buy a camera for exacty that. They don’t care about final image quality. They just care about catching the smile and OOC jpeg’s and for that they need a fast frame rate, fast tracking AF and a punchy image processor (my son processes in LR). Marketing and message control wouldn’t change that.

DPR writes for them, not for pros. Pros buy their gear reviews from paid-membership, expert reviewers and knew about the baked RAW’s months ago. DPR is selling clicks and Amazon is selling cameras.

[Rico]

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.

midbrain I am seeing better color volume which makes it seem like there is less edge sharpness. I don't think there is much difference between the edge sharpness the added color data just makes it seem to the eye it is less sharp. The color gradation in the K-1KMII images is greatly improved over the K-1. At 100% viewing it looks "less" sharp to the eye. But at Full Screen view brings better 3D spatial rendering.

[KDD]

Waiting for PF review and Adam will answer soon.

[normhead]

Everyone should keep in mind. It doesn't matter what negative people see. If you are happy with the images their opinion won't matter. Not everyone is crying the blues, in fact some seem quite happy.

[Rico]

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

This test chart comparison is a good example showing the better color coming from the K-1KMII. I am assuming the K-1KMII is the one in the middle. The magnification is a little different in each image but you can clearly see the frosted color filter effect the K-1 has against the K-1KMII.

[ElrondElensar]

Did you look at the end and the "Compare mode" against the K-1? K-1 II got less points in almost every category! That's insane and can only be a subjective opinion, bot no standardized test result.

It's not insane. They clearly state that their expectation of what a camera in this price range should offer has changed in 2 years since they reviewed K1. Hence, lower rating in 2018 for the same camera. The expectation and rating change over time. If that were not the case, all 2018 cameras woulkd score over 100% if compared to 2008 cameras.

[DennisP]

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.

I completely disagree with the image quality assessment. I downloaded the RAW files at ISO 12800 and ISO 1600 for the K-1 and K-1 MkII and ran them both through Adobe Camera Raw at default settings, no sharpening, etc. and saved as 16 bit TIF files.
Ignoring the fact that a completely different lens was used (and this is a huge flaw in the test), the output from the K-1 Mk2 is cleaner while still retaining the same amount of detail.

Let's examine how images are used in real life, beyond the realm of theoretical internet arguments. The unprocessed RAW images from both cameras with all of the color moire evident are completely unusable. You can't present them to a client like that, so zooming in to 400% and peeping details is a little silly. The K-1 Mk2 images have a lot less false color evident while retaining excellent detail in most areas. They also appear to be lower contrast than the K-1 Mk1 images, probably due to the different lens much more than any difference in the camera itself.

The key thing is that after equalizing the contrast and brightness between the 2 cameras, I immediately prefer the K-1 Mk2 images due to the noticeably cleaner color output.
Additionally, if you then apply some tasteful color NR to eliminate the false color to both images and a bit of sharpening, the images can be made to look identical, with a very slight edge going to the K-1 Mk2. I say this while intentionally staying away from anything close to the edges of the test images since, again, a completely different lens was used which makes the entire comparison suspect.

Finally, I'm only speaking about RAW files here, I've never shot in JPG format on a DSLR and don't imagine any serious photographer ever does, but that's up to the individual to decide.

So, in conclusion (and I use that term with plenty of sarcasm here), in my opinion, the K-1 Mk2 appears to be an incremental image upgrade for RAW shooters with slightly but noticeably improved AF as well, as advertised.

My friend owns a K-1 and I tested the AF-S mode on both cameras using the same 24-70 lens (that I just purchased), and whatever Pentax did to the AF seems to have reduced that slight bit of hesitation noticeably. The AF "feels" better on the new camera and both of us agreed on this point. Again, it's a subtle but definitely noticeable improvement. This was done in good light, outdoors. We did not try in low light, but I intend to re-visit the AF when we meet up again.