[Rondec]

There is way too much micro analysis going on here. Maybe Pentax was "asking for it," by basically releasing two versions of the same camera -- one with accelerator chip and one without. People have to know how this works.

At the same time, I just don't see this level of micro analysis with other cameras looking for the tiny signs of brands massaging raw files. Because it is clear that like it or not, "Everyone is doing it," to a lesser or greater extent. The question isn't whether the raw files are slightly cooked when we first start working with them, it is whether the cooking gives some kind of major negative effect in the end.

That is exactly what this sort focus ignores. The forest and the trees are all still there. There is less noise in the trees, but at most printing/viewing sizes the difference will not be perceptible and in fact the cleanness of the K-1 II images is likely to be perceived well by those viewing the images.

[Oakland Rob]

There is way too much micro analysis going on here. Maybe Pentax was "asking for it," by basically releasing two versions of the same camera -- one with accelerator chip and one without. People have to know how this works.

At the same time, I just don't see this level of micro analysis with other cameras looking for the tiny signs of brands massaging raw files. Because it is clear that like it or not, "Everyone is doing it," to a lesser or greater extent. The question isn't whether the raw files are slightly cooked when we first start working with them, it is whether the cooking gives some kind of major negative effect in the end.

That is exactly what this sort focus ignores. The forest and the trees are all still there. There is less noise in the trees, but at most printing/viewing sizes the difference will not be perceptible and in fact the cleanness of the K-1 II images is likely to be perceived well by those viewing the images.

I agree about the micro-analysis, but the pixel peeping at DPR kinda invites that. It's not like they handed it to six landscape photographers for a month and said "review it." That would be of more value to me, at least.

And the K-1.2 isn't a new camera. It's a tweak on an existing model. I'd review it as just an update or postscript to the existing K-1, and maybe note say the AF improvement vs the NR issue, and the fact it didn't change much else, and leave it at that. But the reviews are about generating visits, not selling a camera.

I guess when so many cameras are so good we're gonna see even deeper dives by some sites into smaller and smaller and smaller bits of the image in search of differences to write about. Doesn't seem that useful to me. I'm not saying that kinda detail can't be important to some (say the astro folks) but as I've noted elsewhere, for me I'd much rather see how long a Pentax can survive a fall in a creek vs a Sony. YMMV.

[Rondec]

I agree about the micro-analysis, but the pixel peeping at DPR kinda invites that. It's not like they handed it to six landscape photographers for a month and said "review it." That would be of more value to me, at least.

And the K-1.2 isn't a new camera. It's a tweak on an existing model. I'd review it as just an update or postscript to the existing K-1, and maybe note say the AF improvement vs the NR issue, and the fact it didn't change much else, and leave it at that. But the reviews are about generating visits, not selling a camera.

I guess when so many cameras are so good we're gonna see even deeper dives by some sites into smaller and smaller and smaller bits of the image in search of differences to write about. Doesn't seem that useful to me. I'm not saying that kinda detail can't be important to some (say the astro folks) but as I've noted elsewhere, for me I'd much rather see how long a Pentax can survive a fall in a creek vs a Sony. YMMV.

I just wish they would say "These are the areas where your photos will be worse with the accelerator chip" and then show examples. If it does eat stars with astro photography, then show that. But to this point, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Same with landscapes or macro photography or wildlife.

You mentioned landscapes and my experience is that I don't shoot landscapes very often above iso 200 or certainly 400 so this wouldn't even affect me. I doubt portrait or wedding photographers would notice the difference either, since they are often wanting to soften skin as well.

[Kunzite]

I just wish they would say "These are the areas where your photos will be worse with the accelerator chip" and then show examples. If it does eat stars with astro photography, then show that.

Maybe they don't want to show areas which are actually out of focus?

[DennisP]

I just wish they would say "These are the areas where your photos will be worse with the accelerator chip" and then show examples. If it does eat stars with astro photography, then show that. But to this point, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Same with landscapes or macro photography or wildlife.

You mentioned landscapes and my experience is that I don't shoot landscapes very often above iso 200 or certainly 400 so this wouldn't even affect me. I doubt portrait or wedding photographers would notice the difference either, since they are often wanting to soften skin as well.

Before and after sharpening in post, at high ISO (12800, 1600) I saw more fine details resolved on the K-1 II RAW files with the added benefit of noticeably reduced false color and color noise. I think the improvement is very subtle, but it's there to exploit if you are willing to post-process your RAW files, as any "serious" photographer is going to do.

[Kunzite]

Just noticed that, from ISO 200, Silkypix wants to apply different sharpening parameters to the K-1 II, compared to the K-1 (e.g. less sharpening). Other software might do the same.

The K-1 II scene is somewhat washed out by the different lightning - easily seen on the metal things under the brushes.

---------- Post added 08-05-18 at 11:46 PM ----------

So... Rishi issued me a 7-days ban because I was too loud contesting their botched test. OP, I followed your instructions; now what?

[MJKoski]

At the same time, I just don't see this level of micro analysis with other cameras looking for the tiny signs of brands massaging raw files.

Oh dude, I did this with a7 mk1 back in 2013 which eventually ended up in having uncompressed RAW for a7mk2 cameras. My star trails artifact example was part of RawDigger software help It is quite easy to see where RAW files are mangled. Have a look at your cellphone images at pixel level and you will find similarities both in Sony's spatial filtering and K-1 mk2 filtering. Sure, not in similar magnitude but they are there. In proper RAW file detail is detail, not mush. My next finding will discuss how to spot filtering in long exposures with pretty nasty examples of screwing up smooth tonal transitions.

[Rico]

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.

DennisP this is what I am seeing also from the images I have downloaded to compare. The K-1 images the color is much flatter due to the white caste across the entire image which makes the edges appear sharper. The cleaner color of the K-1MKII is adding a better sense of volume to objects which makes the edges appear less detailed when viewed at 100%. There is better spatial depth between objects in the K-1MKII images.

The PF image of the violet plant when you move the slider from the K-1 to the K-1MKII a sense of space between the flower the background color and the dark tree trunk really opens up. The hard edge of the tree becomes more defined in the MkII image not less. The edges of the flower in the MKII image is effected more by the cleaner background color than anything else which is another factor which is making it appear as though the edges are less detailed.

Hope you and your friend can provide some real world comparisons.

---------- Post added 05-08-18 at 05:09 PM ----------

Just noticed that, from ISO 200, Silkypix wants to apply different sharpening parameters to the K-1 II, compared to the K-1 (e.g. less sharpening). Other software might do the same.

The K-1 II scene is somewhat washed out by the different lightning - easily seen on the metal things under the brushes.

---------- Post added 08-05-18 at 11:46 PM ----------

So... Rishi issued me a 7-days ban because I was too loud contesting their botched test. OP, I followed your instructions; now what?

Ha hahaa.

Next stop Kunzite is having yourself locked out of this thread. :^)

[Kunzite]

No way, Mike is a gentleman - if I'm doing something wrong and he tells me to stop I'd feel too bad not to listen

[robbiec]

Just noticed that, from ISO 200, Silkypix wants to apply different sharpening parameters to the K-1 II, compared to the K-1 (e.g. less sharpening). Other software might do the same.

The K-1 II scene is somewhat washed out by the different lightning - easily seen on the metal things under the brushes.


---------- Post added 08-05-18 at 11:46 PM ----------

So... Rishi issued me a 7-days ban because I was too loud contesting their botched test. OP, I followed your instructions; now what?

Liked!

[monochrome]

Just noticed that, from ISO 200, Silkypix wants to apply different sharpening parameters to the K-1 II, compared to the K-1 (e.g. less sharpening). Other software might do the same.

The K-1 II scene is somewhat washed out by the different lightning - easily seen on the metal things under the brushes.

---------- Post added 08-05-18 at 11:46 PM ----------

So... Rishi issued me a 7-days ban because I was too loud contesting their botched test. OP, I followed your instructions; now what?

Only 7 days? Lightweight . I want a lifetime ban with the brand to prove it. Big D on the forehead or something.

[Kunzite]

I wonder if they could offer a package, get banned on DPR, get banned on The Camera Store TV too. Next week I should ask them about it

[DennisP]

DennisP this is what I am seeing also from the images I have downloaded to compare. The K-1 images the color is much flatter due to the white caste across the entire image which makes the edges appear sharper. The cleaner color of the K-1MKII is adding a better sense of volume to objects which makes the edges appear less detailed when viewed at 100%. There is better spatial depth between objects in the K-1MKII images.

The PF image of the violet plant when you move the slider from the K-1 to the K-1MKII a sense of space between the flower the background color and the dark tree trunk really opens up. The hard edge of the tree becomes more defined in the MkII image not less. The edges of the flower in the MKII image is effected more by the cleaner background color than anything else which is another factor which is making it appear as though the edges are less detailed.

Hope you and your friend can provide some real world comparisons.

---------- Post added 05-08-18 at 05:09 PM ----------



Ha hahaa.

Next stop Kunzite is having yourself locked out of this thread. :^)

Sure, I'll have to see about that the next time I meet up with my buddy.

[Rico]

Sure, I'll have to see about that the next time I meet up with my buddy.

DennisP have you done any B&W conversions in ACR. This is were I see the Accelerator Unit paying dividends also.

[ElrondElensar]

KII start eater on "steroid"
K1 ll review is up and I think that..: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review