[madbrain]

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.

I took the K-1 II for a shooting in Napa last weekend, and the AF outdoors in daylight was in a completely different league vs the K-30 . Never had it focus so fast. This was true especially with the D FA 28-105 mm kit lens, but just the same with the DA35, DA50, and Sigma 70-300mm APO, which are all the lenses I shot with that day.

In low-light, at home, the AF is still pretty slow with the zoom lenses. A little better with the primes. Except my FA50/1.4which seems to struggle a bit. DA50/1.8 focuses better/faster with it. But it is not in a completely different AF performance category vs the K-30, like it is in daylight .

[Kunzite]

That said, I don't understand why you call their assessment "outlandish".
Have you looked at the pentaxforums.com comparison?

Have you seen the analysis by bclaff?
The latter is proof that denoising (i.e., as in post noise removal with unavoidable smoothing effects) is applied, as opposed to a genuine noise reduction at the sensor hardware level (which I always maintained is not possible with a modern Sony sensor).

IMO in the Pentaxforums' circuit board samples the K-1 II is clearly better (less noise, still keeping detail).
Which is not consistent with the tree sample.

Maybe I'm missing something, but proof of denoising is not the same as proof of smoothing?

[Shivaess]

IMO in the Pentaxforums' circuit board samples the K-1 II is clearly better (less noise, still keeping detail).
Which is not consistent with the tree sample.

Maybe I'm missing something, but proof of denoising is not the same as proof of smoothing?

The issue isn't that the noise reduction isn't well done (although I would argue that ISO 640 seems like jumping the gun), but that it is mandatory. I can apply equally good noise reduction on my workstation at a later date to the sections of the image I want and to the degree that I want. I don't want my camera to take that choice away from me.

As it stands today I need to shoot at ISO 400 and pump the image to get the maximum amount of detail from the sensor, which seems nuts. I could see activating this NR at higher ISO's (like above 6400) to do some preliminary cleanup in camera? But maybe not even that realistically. I post process all my images, which are all shot in RAW and have no problem applying NR at that time.

[rawr]

I can apply equally good noise reduction on my workstation at a later date to the sections of the image I want and to the degree that I want.

Exactly. In post-processing in LR or DxO or C1, it's easy to apply selective adjustment of NR, and leave the rest of the image alone. Mandatory NR can't be that intelligent (yet).

If I'm shooting a low-light rodeo stadium scene, for example, I don't care about noise in the dark, bokehed background, I just want details of the action (cowboy, horse/bull) cleaned up, if need be. Similarly with wildlife shooting - I might normally do no NR to a bird shot except for the head and body, if necessary, and even then only apply the slightest amount of selective NR to preserve feather detail.

[Andrea K]

Class A the DPR review is making outlandish accusations with "takeaway" statements like "Baked-in noise reduction results in Raw files with progressively less detail than the original K-1 as the ISO increases." This is not supported by their own Studio Scene comparison. The exact opposite is true to the quality of the images as the ISO increases. The K-1MKII in the DPR studio scene doesn't only outperform the K-1 by a wide margin it also outperforms both the Sony and Nikon by wide margins as ISO increases which is a surprise as they are using the newest BSI sensors which should have better high ISO performance but they don't against the K-1MKII.

I am still waiting for someone to show me were this progressively less detail is happening. I can show you all over the Studio Scene just how well the K-1MKII is outperforming all three of the cameras in the studio scene. The Beatles swatch is a good spot too see how much better the K-1MKII files are as the ISO increases. If you highlight the heads keeping some of the grey background you can see how much better the grey background is handled as ISO increases.

I find it rather odd that for so many years digital photography has been lambasted for ugly "noise" but when Ricoh/Pentax performs a minor miracle with the Accelerator Unit to cleanly get rid of the ugly "noise" it's a step backward for people now. Now they prefer the ugly "noise".

Outperform?
100% crop at ISO 800



Under ISO 800 the K-1 II has better resolution because the RAW-NR is enabled at ISO 640 and the MACRO "works" better than 77.

However speaking of different lenses it is impossible to draw any result, even if the DFA 50 MACRO had been perfect.

[teiki arii]

Sorry to bother everyone, I have just red some bad things about K-1 MKII, but not all of them. So, what's going on? I am to upgrade the Pentax K-1 but didn't sent it yet...
Should I?
Best regards for answering...

[angerdan]

What's the difference between this thread and the other one about the same topic?
K-1 ii - PentaxForums.com

[Kunzite]

@teiki arii:
If you want to believe DPR, go and get the Sony A7 III - it's "the best camera under $2000".

Otherwise, I don't know what to say... I'm not decided myself. I'd like the AF improvements (it won't make the camera a D500, but every bit helps); I'd like to play with DPS (though my pics don't need the extra quality); and accelerator-induced intrusive smoothing is debatable.

[angerdan]

If you want to believe DPR, go and get the Sony A7 III - it's "the best camera under $2000".

Buying guide update: The Sony a7 III is the best camera you can buy for under $2000: Digital Photography Review
DPReview is telling only their point of view and don't use professional journalistic guidelines. They prove always their unobjective behavior when there's a topic about Pentax. Some may remember they didn't tell about the 645Z score and pretended the D850 to be the best DSLR.
The academic degrees of some DPR employees aren't worth anything, because they can be archived easier or even buyed buyed with money.
And even real self earned degrees don't say anything about the character of a person. Many criminals does have an degree.

[monochrome]

It is not great news if there is proof of software/hardware-based denoising.

A simple reduction of (sensor-generated) noise should result in homogeneous 2D FT plots. The patterns you see in the published 2D FT's show that some (mostly higher) spatial frequencies are attenuated. What looks like "vignetting" in the 2D FT plots is the effect of signal blurring, i.e., some "smoothing" that is applied to denoise the image.

I'm not making a comment on the quality of the denoising that the K-1 II applies, but I wish it were optional.

Ricoh may have had the best intentions, but they had to realise that DPReview were going to make a meal of mandatory RAW file denoising. Ricoh's approach does not make much sense to me unless they really only want to sell in Japan and count on their customers not attempting to translate DPReview pages into Japanese.

I’d bet RIcoh engineers don’t even know DPR exists. I’d bet most US Pentax buyers don’t either. I certainly don’t care what the think. bclark shows a chart with blue triangles on it. Doesn’t mean anything to me.

[SSGGeezer]

The issue isn't that the noise reduction isn't well done (although I would argue that ISO 640 seems like jumping the gun), but that it is mandatory. I can apply equally good noise reduction on my workstation at a later date to the sections of the image I want and to the degree that I want. I don't want my camera to take that choice away from me.

As it stands today I need to shoot at ISO 400 and pump the image to get the maximum amount of detail from the sensor, which seems nuts. I could see activating this NR at higher ISO's (like above 6400) to do some preliminary cleanup in camera? But maybe not even that realistically. I post process all my images, which are all shot in RAW and have no problem applying NR at that time.

Nice to see you here!
I do have a question though, why did you say based on the DPR "review" that you needed to go test for a "Star eater: when the results were nothing like the Sony's smearing? Did you not think that it might be a little inflammatory to even use that term without testing first?

Serious questions, and since you are here and I dislike the attitude at DPR, and I will probably never register I figured I would ask you here. Thanks.

[MJKoski]

I find it rather odd that for so many years digital photography has been lambasted for ugly "noise"

Yes, chroma noise. Not luminance which is not unpleasant. Film scans and prints with minor grain are always more pleasant to look at than polished, digital, "plastic" surfaces.

[Class A]

Maybe I'm missing something, but proof of denoising is not the same as proof of smoothing?

It is proof of smoothing.

bclark shows a chart with blue triangles on it. Doesn’t mean anything to me.

That's alright, but those technically inclined can infer from the 2D FT plots that smoothing is applied.

Again, I'm not saying that this is terrible; the only bad thing about it is that it is not optional.

Note that DxOMark have reported smoothing for Pentax cameras before. Both K-7 and K-5, for instance, applied smoothing to RAW files as well. The difference is that back then the smoothing was applied beyond ISO 1600 only. While, in my book, any kind of mandatory smoothing should be avoided, it seems preferable to leave as many ISO settings untouched.

I don't know if the K-1 II would have fared better with DPReview if it didn't apply smoothing but I don't see the point of taking choice out of the hands of photographers and giving DPReview ammunition at the same time.

I’d bet RIcoh engineers don’t even know DPR exists.

That may or may not be the case. However, if Ricoh, as a company did not know how their products will be received by the press and hence ran into avoidable mistakes, that wouldn't be good at all. For sure, you don't want a company's engineers bend to marketing pressures, but some awareness is necessary for sustainability, in particular if respective choices create more winners (in this case, make RAW purists happy as well as those that appreciate some processing being done in-camera already).

I’d bet most US Pentax buyers don’t either.

I'd be very surprised if that were the case.

A great DPReview result will definitely help sales. I don't think you want to seriously dispute that.

To be clear, I don't give a rodent's bottom what some DPReview staff personally think about the K-1 II. Very often protest by Pentaxians is misconstrued as the latter requiring approval for their gear choices while they are probably, just like me, trying to prevent damage to the reputation of a brand that could do with some praise instead of being the target of criticism that other brands receive to a much lesser extent.

[normhead]

It all depends if you like too see false detail take what is found on the upper lip I for one would not want to present that as any real detail.

Two words "cloning tool".

[Rico]

I would agree with you that DPReview did a poor job of comparing the outputs. For starters, it does not make sense to compare denoised images with noisy images. One has to establish some kind of level playing field. DPReview made further mistakes and the (probably unconscious) inconsistent treatment of Pentax compared to other brands (of some of their staff) manifests itself in a number of ways.

That said, I don't understand why you call their assessment "outlandish".
Have you looked at the pentaxforums.com comparison?

Have you seen the analysis by bclaff?
The latter is proof that denoising (i.e., as in post noise removal with unavoidable smoothing effects) is applied, as opposed to a genuine noise reduction at the sensor hardware level (which I always maintained is not possible with a modern Sony sensor).


You cannot rely on DPReview studio scene comparisons, no matter whether they are in favour of Pentax or not. They just allow too many variables to change (just note the change of lenses between K-1 and K-1 II).


Do you have a link to that?
I'd be surprised to see anything that deviates from everything I've seen so far (which all pointed into one direction), but I have an open mind.



It's not a "minor miracle". The evidence is overwhelming that it is some competent denoising, possibly combined with other manipulations (saturation, sharpness) thrown in. All of that is fine, except when it is mandatory.

BTW, I always preferred a noisier image over a smoothed one and I guess it is not a "change of heart" for many either.


Please keep us posted.

It would be wonderful if Ricoh released a firmware update that made the RAW manipulations optional. It would make everyone happy and we could see whether DPReview updates their score.

Class A I can see with my own eyes using the DPR Studio Scene comparison how much better the K-1MKII files are than all three cameras DPR set up in the MKII review in the Image Quality section.

The first takeaway comment DPR says this: "Baked-in noise reduction results in Raw files with progressively less detail than the original K-1 as the ISO increases. This can not be turned off." This is just not true as the ISO increases the K-1MKII RAW files are not progressively losing detail as they are claiming. It is the opposite according to the Studio Scene comparison. As ISO increases the K-1MKII is maintaining better detail across all ISO against the K-1, the Sony and the Nikon. Much better color night and day better.

---------- Post added 05-10-18 at 09:05 AM ----------

Outperform?
100% crop at ISO 800



Under ISO 800 the K-1 II has better resolution because the RAW-NR is enabled at ISO 640 and the MACRO "works" better than 77.

However speaking of different lenses it is impossible to draw any result, even if the DFA 50 MACRO had been perfect.

Andrea K the DPR review is claiming that the K-1MKII is losing detail as you increase the ISO. This is jut not the case. Even at ISO 800 the K-1 image is already showing noise levels across the image that is reducing detail most evident in the copper coin. Compare both those areas at ISO3200 and ISO 6400 which camera holds more detail? By ISO 6400 the noise levels are so high for the K-1, Sony and Nikon any detail to the coins is basically gone.