[normhead]

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.

Here in we have the difference in philosophies that drives this conversation. You like noise and want camera makers to produce cameras that make noisy images.

Given that fact, the only people who are going to be vaguely interested in your point of view will be other who like noise. Personally, I prefer a more true rendition of the scene as I perceived it.

I've also encountered in the early days of photography, photographers who liked pixelation and produced huge images that displayed every picture as a composition of 1/8 inch squares, It looked like a mosaic. I didn't like that either.

If your thread title was "I like noise and I'm disappointed with the K-1 mkII" there would not be a single objection to your line of thinking.

Personally, I don't see noise in the real world and I don't want it in my pictures, no matter how pleasing some might find it.

But bottom line, I won't be selling anything to you, and you certainly won't be selling anything to me. Nor will you be selling to anyone who thinks like me, which I suspect is a very large segment of the population.

Noise is the grown up equivalent to splatter paint techniques. It's still art, just not for everyone.

Just like splatter painting a photograph with random paint dots would produce a noisy but possibly pleasing image, noise actually decreases detail by over writing it with random artifacts.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-10-2018 at 06:19 AM.

[teiki arii]

@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.

I can't stand EVF of Sony. Besides, Sony A7III EVF has nothing to do with A7RIII EVF which has nothing to do with Leica SL EVF...
I realy do not know what to do... hope Pentax announces a new firmware to take automatic NR off on Pentax K-1 II...

[Kunzite]

I can't stand EVF of Sony

Neither can I. But arguing with DPR means going for the opportunity to get banned

Just be careful when comparing the cameras (many mistakes were made on the way), and do whatever you feel it's right - then don't regret it; either way you'll have a good camera.
That's the only piece of (useless) advice I can give you, sorry.

[normhead]

I can't stand EVF of Sony. Besides, Sony A7III EVF has nothing to do with A7RIII EVF which has nothing to do with Leica SL EVF...
I realy do not know what to do... hope Pentax announces a new firmware to take automatic NR off on Pentax K-1 II...

Are you in the middle of making a purchasing decision? Is that why this is relevant?

Pixel Shift gives you less noise and more detail. That's a bad thing if you like noise.
There are lots of noisey cameras out there to choose from.
But the basic premise, that Pentax noise reduction causes significant losses in resolution is unsupported by the data, not by DPR;s opinions, but by looking at the actual images.

Which reminds me of quote I heard once "Our study shows that in 60% of studies published the conclusions are not supported by the data". DPR's conclusions are neither rigorous or supported by their own data.

If you put so much weight into what they say at DPR, follow their advice. Most of us don't agree with their interpretation of their images. We've already rejected them out right as bunch of losers. Coming here and asking us to advise your decision based on your acceptance of their information is pointless. We've looked at the images. They don't say what DPR says they say. Most of us have moved on.

If you believe what DPR says, buy the camera they recommend. My suggestion is, it's going to be an expensive lesson for you, but it's your choice.

The only question is do you want the increase in resolution Pentax NR brings by reducing random sensor artifacts and quantum level noise (which the human eye brain combination deliberately filter out) , or don't you? Do you want pictures? Or science experiments?

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-10-2018 at 10:00 AM.

[Andrea K]

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.

Excuse me, the crops are from this procedure: K-1II review... Opportunity to get banned on DPR - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

Here 12800 ISO:


That in DPR comparison tool is:


Where the k-1 MkII absolutely shines is in the DPR Low Light test.... I can't explain why so much difference between the two scenes:


at:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight...84659063743178

This with RAW comparison... If you select JPEG the result is reversed again...

[normhead]

Excuse me, the crops are from this procedure: K-1II review... Opportunity to get banned on DPR - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

Here 12800 ISO:


That in DPR comparison tool is:

To quote myself (ad nauseam)
the basic premise, that Pentax noise reduction causes significant losses in resolution is unsupported by the data, not by DPR;s opinions, but by looking at the actual images.

The only reason people get conned by these completely unscrupulous, anti-rigour type sites, is they don't check the work themselves. If you believe the shoddy work DPR writers do and don't check up on them, their ignorance will be your ignorance.

[reh321]

... hope Pentax announces a new firmware to take automatic NR off on Pentax K-1 II...

That would require a switch to bypass the 'accelerator'. I doubt if that switch exists, because it would be another source of noise.

[Rondec]

That would require a switch to bypass the 'accelerator'. I doubt if that switch exists, because it would be another source of noise.

You say that, but it doesn't make any sense to me. My understanding is that accelerator doesn't do anything below iso 640. Therefore it is possible to change that threshold up or down and have it kick in at a higher iso. I don't know that it is just a line of code that needs to be changed to have it kick in at, say, iso 1600, but certainly it should be possible.

What I don't think is likely would be to allow it to just be turned off completely.

[normhead]

Bypass the accelerator because people want the opportunity to see detail obliterated by noise? As in below.

[Andrea K]

Bypass the accelerator because people want the opportunity to see detail obliterated by noise? As in below.

Due different lens the DPR test isn't valid, neither to say that Mk I is better than Mk II nor to say the opposite. In my test, that you can download at the linked post, I removed all variables apart, obviously, the lens, the focus and the shaking. For this reason they are not images that can lead to a result, in any sense.

[Rico]

Excuse me, the crops are from this procedure: K-1II review... Opportunity to get banned on DPR - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

Here 12800 ISO:


That in DPR comparison tool is:


Where the k-1 MkII absolutely shines is in the DPR Low Light test.... I can't explain why so much difference between the two scenes:


at:
Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

This with RAW comparison... If you select JPEG the result is reversed again...

Andrea K the ISO12800 even better demonstrates how much the K-1MKII holds more detail against the K-1 as ISO increases. Look at the copper coin. Nearly all the detail in the K-1 is gone due to the noise. That lose of detail is happening across the entire image because the noise causing the detail to disappear is evenly distributed across the entire file. Which makes the K-1 image look more linear which is making it appear "sharper" when it is not. Convert the image to B&W and you can see how much more natural and 3D the coins look in the K-1MKII against the K-1.

I have suggested this simple test to see how much better the "noise" is being handled by the K-1MKII over all three camera as the ISO increases by highlighting a spot of just the grey background then increase the ISO. Do the same with the color chart. You can see right from ISO 200 how much noise is introduced by the three other cameras. It is clear how much better the K-1MKII files are in handling continuous color tone across ISO levels. And it is excelling in the hardest areas to maintain the greys and the blacks. I can not see post processing doing a better job to what the Accelerator Unit is doing.

The low light test is easy to explain what is happening there it is the Accelerator Unit making the difference.

[tvdtvdtvd]

I keep mistaking them (DPR) with a professional review site

They may have been that in the past. To be honest, it's been so long I honestly can't remember when they became the
thinly veiled editorial mouth for their advertisers. DPR's harsh criticisms would be acceptable if they were given
in equal measure, but they're not. Products that are liked are criticized gently, while giving those products much
exposure, typically through multiple articles that rehash the same content. Products that are not liked are given
special focus on negative points, while downplaying, minimizing or ignoring strong points, and further receiving
far less coverage, (fewer articles).

[DennisP]

They may have been that in the past. To be honest, it's been so long I honestly can't remember when they became the
thinly veiled editorial mouth for their advertisers. DPR's harsh criticisms would be acceptable if they were given
in equal measure, but they're not. Products that are liked are criticized gently, while giving those products much
exposure, typically through multiple articles that rehash the same content. Products that are not liked are given
special focus on negative points, while downplaying, minimizing or ignoring strong points, and further receiving
far less coverage, (fewer articles).

DPR was never a bastion of scientific analysis, but was much more "measured" in the past (8+ years ago).
The site dropped in quality when Phil left and when they were purchased by Amazon.
They have kept up the appearance of being a technical resource, but are now driven primarily by clicks, ad revenue, and corporate ass kissing. Note the massive marketing campaign for the A7III and all of the glowing positive reviews after all of these websites, youtubers etc. were flown out to the swanky Sony event, fed fine food and drink, and canoodled with sexy models and celebrity photographers. Shockingly, a week or two after the event, the steady drumbeat of overwhelmingly positive reviews appeared all over the internet, DPR included. This is the world we live in unfortunately, and small companies like Pentax are like a gnat on the ass of a bull to these people.

[D1N0]

Bypass the accelerator because people want the opportunity to see detail obliterated by noise? As in below.

Both bad. 12800 is not for 1:1 viewing. At least nr reduces jpeg size.

[normhead]

Both bad. 12800 is not for 1:1 viewing. At least nr reduces jpeg size.

True, and I have always said, good pictures don't come from high ISO. Yet people continue to harp on the benefits of high ISO images. In these discussions, minute bits of resolution are proclaimed to be worth switching brands for, while larger issues like the loss of resolution due to increased noise, loss fo Dynamic Range and colour depth are ignored as if they don't exist.

Back in the day (k-5 vs D800) I posed the question "How can you compare high ISO settings and claim one is better than the other, when at 100 ISO they are practically identical and the high ISO image is never as good as the 100-400 ISO image?"

The question has never even been adressed though asked a hundred times. When high ISO comes with the same dynamic range, colour depth and resolution as lower ISO images, I may be more inclined to pay attention to these things.

But to be blunt, the argument is over which crap image is better, when any neutral observer would say, I'm not switching brands so my crap images will be slightly better than someone else's crap images. I trash all crap images. And I certainly don't make camera purchasing decisions based on them. The only thing that matters to me is what is the highest ISO I can get a decent image from? That's gone from 400 ISO with the K20D to 3200 ISO on the K-1.What happens at 102,000 ISO is of little interest.