Originally posted by swanlefitte 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.