K1 Vs K1 Mk2

alvaro_garcia · 05-17-2018, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

OK, I see where you're coming from.

I never look at the out-of-camera JPEG test photos... I'm only interested in the RAW comparisons - firstly, because that's what I shoot (almost exclusively) and secondly, because I can be certain there are no JPEG processing differences. Of course, we can never be certain that the RAW development software settings were exactly the same, but I would hope the testers use the same settings for every file...

I love a good seafood paella, I *really* love caviar (on blinis, with a little sour cream), and I'm having an omelette for lunch

You got my point finally. I'm a JPG shooter, that's why I'm refering to this example.

I can show you the same shot (JPG) from the K1 with default settings and another one with increased clarity and sharpness. And compare both images with another two from my APS-C Nikon Coolpix A, one with default settings and another one with just increased sharpness.

You will see the huge difference between the two shots from the K1: the one with default settings clearly "worse" than the two shots from the Nikon (the Nikon here "wins") and than the other shot from the K1. Besides, when you compare the K1 with increased clarity and sharpness with the two shots from the Nikon, the K1 "wins".

And that's why I'm saying reviewers should not compare cameras with default settings, as the customers will think this camera's JPGs are worse than that camera, when it may be or maybe not true, depending on the settings. Should Pentax had put higher clarity and sharpness by default on K1's JPGs, the reviewers would have rated it as it merits. Sure.

Last edited by alvaro_garcia; 05-17-2018 at 03:24 AM.

**Rondec** · 05-17-2018, 03:28 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ahw

DPR does not say this at all. On the contrary, DPR acknowledged that the K-1MKii exhibited lower noise levels at higher ISOs, just like you pointed out.

The issue is WHY the K-1MKii exhibited lower noise levels over the K-1. According to DPR, it is due to the K-1MKii baking in irreversible filtering at higher ISOs, i.e., applying noise reduction to RAWs.

That's a huge problem, IMO. RAWs are intended to be minimally processed. The K-1MKii is baking in NR into RAWs. Presumably, they are doing so to 1) "justify" the upgrade from the K-1 to the K-1MKii, and 2) mask the absence of dual gain architecture on the K-1MKii and give the appearance that Pentax is keeping up with its competitors.

Let me be absolutely clear: I don't think the loss off contrast/detail caused by the forced NR Pentax is baking into RAWs is hugely significant. What I do find hugely significant is that Pentax is apparently relying on smoke and mirrors by processing RAWs to make the K-1MKii look like more of an upgrade over the K-1 than it actually is, and to trick people into thinking that Pentax is keeping up with its rivals in terms of High ISO performance.

Pentax/Ricoh had been struggling financially, has been slow to release new products (2017 roadmapped 50mm and 85mm lenses come to mind) and had to send a message that inspired confidence in its customers. Baking NR into RAWs to make the K-1MKii superficially look better than it actually is (compared to the K-1) doesn't inspire confidence in me.

It is funny to me all of the folks who want "purity" in their RAW files as though this is something pretty new. Pentax has had some smoothing of RAW files since the K5 (it kicked in at iso 1600 there). There is a perception that whatever the accelerator is doing, you could do yourself at home on your computer.

That may be true if (a) you are willing to buy a piece of software like DXO (b) take the time to learn it and (c) take the time to run each image file that needs processing through it. For most people they would rather just take the easier path and they don't really care if there is a little bit of smoothing done their RAW files.

As far as it being a trick to make people think Pentax is "keeping up with their competitors," there actually has been minimal advancement over time with regard to high iso performance. Current sensors, like those in the A9 don't actually test much better than the sensor in the K-1 -- in fact, they have lower sports iso scores. The big "advancement" lately is read out speed and I suppose it is something to get 20 frames a second of roughly K-1 performance, but certainly it doesn't translate into significantly better dynamic range or SNR below iso 6400.

**BigMackCam** · 05-17-2018, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by alvaro_garcia

You got my point finally.

Er, thanks for that

Originally posted by alvaro_garcia

I'm a JPG shooter, that's why I'm refering to this example.

I can show you the same shot (JPG) from the K1 with default settings and another one with increased clarity and sharpness. And compare both images with another two from my APS-C Nikon Coolpix A, one with default settings and another one with just increased sharpness.

You will see the huge difference between the two shots from the K1: the one with default settings clearly "worse" than the two shots from the Nikon (the Nikon here "wins") and than the other shot from the K1. Besides, when you compare the K1 with increased clarity and sharpness with the two shots from the Nikon, the K1 "wins".

I don't doubt it.

For this reason, I see limited value in JPEG test shots unless they were to include all the different settings permutations, so that those interested can see what the camera's JPEG engine is capable of. The problem being (and I know you already appreciate this), default setting on every single camera will result in different levels of processing - there's no all-manufacturer standard on JPEG processing levels, so "0" on one camera could be "+3" on another, and "-2" on yet another.

Even for those like yourself who prefer to shoot JPEG, the RAW test shots are - IMHO - more useful in assessing the image quality, since you know you can alter the in-camera settings for JPEG processing to suit...

pinholecam · 05-17-2018, 04:03 AM - **2 Likes**

All this purity argument is just argument for its own sake.

Raw should be just the garbage that comes out the sensor and the end user should be left to his own devices to find a way to churn it into an image...

alvaro_garcia · 05-17-2018, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Er, thanks for that

I don't doubt it.

For this reason, I see limited value in JPEG test shots unless they were to include all the different settings permutations, so that those interested can see what the camera's JPEG engine is capable of. The problem being (and I know you already appreciate this), default setting on every single camera will result in different levels of processing - there's no all-manufacturer standard on JPEG processing levels, so "0" on one camera could be "+3" on another, and "-2" on yet another.

Even for those like yourself who prefer to shoot JPEG, the RAW test shots are - IMHO - more useful in assessing the image quality, since you know you can alter the in-camera settings for JPEG processing to suit...

Exactly. And that makes all comparisons partial and, somehow, subjective like you said, especially when it comes to JPGs. Unless (like you said again) they test JPGs on every single camera changing every single parameter (clarity, sharpness, contrast, colour saturation, brightness, EV...), but that would make every review certainly unapproachable.

I recon that comparing RAWs with default settings are far more fair bearing all this in mind. However, as far as I know, also RAWs can be affected by some in-camera settings, isn't it? What in such case comparing RAWs can still also be a little bit "unfair" and "subjective".

Years ago when I compared straight out of camera JPGs vs RAWs on my Canon 7D, I noticed that there wasn't any virtual difference between both in terms of sharpness, but there was in colour and contrast (being much more appealing the JPGs to my eyes) and that's one of the reasons I only shoot in JPG. Same with my Nikon after comparing JPGs vs RAWs.

Besides, I'm not the kind of guy who spends time with post-processing and keeps both formats for each picture to create from each RAW a third file with TV-friendly extension (again JPG, BMP) to end up filling one HDD every few trips. No. And in case I really need to play with certain photo (in my case 0.01% of times) for instance to increase the dynamic range in strong backlighting conditions or other things, I can also do it with the JPGs, even if the RAWs give me more "room" to play with them.

All I want to do is just to play with the in-camera settings, shoot, transfer and watch. That's it. And keeping only one file per picture (or maximum two just in case of real need of post-processing for certain shots) and save space. All this does not mean I don't pay attention to quality, of course I do, otherwise I would have never jumped to APS-C and then to FF to obtain gradually better dynamic range, contrast, colour accuracy, sharpness... And you can see these improvements on JPGs too.

swanlefitte · 05-17-2018, 09:00 AM

To see different tastes in jpg processing go to the pp challenge thread. Its the same raw with different jpeg output by the time it makes it to the thread. Some people give multiple entries showing we can have multiple tastes at the same time. One day you prefer fish eggs the next mixed seafood or neither to stick with that analogy.
Not sure if this is purely tangent or not but an interesting point non the less.

05-17-2018, 05:05 AM	#50
alvaro_garcia Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 185	Originally posted by BigMackCam Er, thanks for that I don't doubt it. For this reason, I see limited value in JPEG test shots unless they were to include all the different settings permutations, so that those interested can see what the camera's JPEG engine is capable of. The problem being (and I know you already appreciate this), default setting on every single camera will result in different levels of processing - there's no all-manufacturer standard on JPEG processing levels, so "0" on one camera could be "+3" on another, and "-2" on yet another. Even for those like yourself who prefer to shoot JPEG, the RAW test shots are - IMHO - more useful in assessing the image quality, since you know you can alter the in-camera settings for JPEG processing to suit... Exactly. And that makes all comparisons partial and, somehow, subjective like you said, especially when it comes to JPGs. Unless (like you said again) they test JPGs on every single camera changing every single parameter (clarity, sharpness, contrast, colour saturation, brightness, EV...), but that would make every review certainly unapproachable. I recon that comparing RAWs with default settings are far more fair bearing all this in mind. However, as far as I know, also RAWs can be affected by some in-camera settings, isn't it? What in such case comparing RAWs can still also be a little bit "unfair" and "subjective". Years ago when I compared straight out of camera JPGs vs RAWs on my Canon 7D, I noticed that there wasn't any virtual difference between both in terms of sharpness, but there was in colour and contrast (being much more appealing the JPGs to my eyes) and that's one of the reasons I only shoot in JPG. Same with my Nikon after comparing JPGs vs RAWs. Besides, I'm not the kind of guy who spends time with post-processing and keeps both formats for each picture to create from each RAW a third file with TV-friendly extension (again JPG, BMP) to end up filling one HDD every few trips. No. And in case I really need to play with certain photo (in my case 0.01% of times) for instance to increase the dynamic range in strong backlighting conditions or other things, I can also do it with the JPGs, even if the RAWs give me more "room" to play with them. All I want to do is just to play with the in-camera settings, shoot, transfer and watch. That's it. And keeping only one file per picture (or maximum two just in case of real need of post-processing for certain shots) and save space. All this does not mean I don't pay attention to quality, of course I do, otherwise I would have never jumped to APS-C and then to FF to obtain gradually better dynamic range, contrast, colour accuracy, sharpness... And you can see these improvements on JPGs too. Last edited by alvaro_garcia; 05-17-2018 at 05:50 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-1 MK2 - Unhappy with results at moderate ISO settings	MJKoski	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	561	10-04-2018 09:53 PM
K1 Mk2 DA 300 TC	Mallee Boy	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	9	04-26-2018 03:10 AM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs.......	Steelski	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Help with a GR MK2	Namibchris	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	01-20-2017 07:16 AM
Tascam DR-07 MK2 vs DR05 vsZoom H1 vs H2	magnosantos	Video Recording and Processing	2	08-25-2011 01:50 AM

05-17-2018, 03:19 AM	#46
alvaro_garcia Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 185	Originally posted by BigMackCam OK, I see where you're coming from. I never look at the out-of-camera JPEG test photos... I'm only interested in the RAW comparisons - firstly, because that's what I shoot (almost exclusively) and secondly, because I can be certain there are no JPEG processing differences. Of course, we can never be certain that the RAW development software settings were exactly the same, but I would hope the testers use the same settings for every file... I love a good seafood paella, I really love caviar (on blinis, with a little sour cream), and I'm having an omelette for lunch You got my point finally. I'm a JPG shooter, that's why I'm refering to this example. I can show you the same shot (JPG) from the K1 with default settings and another one with increased clarity and sharpness. And compare both images with another two from my APS-C Nikon Coolpix A, one with default settings and another one with just increased sharpness. You will see the huge difference between the two shots from the K1: the one with default settings clearly "worse" than the two shots from the Nikon (the Nikon here "wins") and than the other shot from the K1. Besides, when you compare the K1 with increased clarity and sharpness with the two shots from the Nikon, the K1 "wins". And that's why I'm saying reviewers should not compare cameras with default settings, as the customers will think this camera's JPGs are worse than that camera, when it may be or maybe not true, depending on the settings. Should Pentax had put higher clarity and sharpness by default on K1's JPGs, the reviewers would have rated it as it merits. Sure. Last edited by alvaro_garcia; 05-17-2018 at 03:24 AM.

05-17-2018, 03:28 AM - 1 Like	#47
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by ahw DPR does not say this at all. On the contrary, DPR acknowledged that the K-1MKii exhibited lower noise levels at higher ISOs, just like you pointed out. The issue is WHY the K-1MKii exhibited lower noise levels over the K-1. According to DPR, it is due to the K-1MKii baking in irreversible filtering at higher ISOs, i.e., applying noise reduction to RAWs. That's a huge problem, IMO. RAWs are intended to be minimally processed. The K-1MKii is baking in NR into RAWs. Presumably, they are doing so to 1) "justify" the upgrade from the K-1 to the K-1MKii, and 2) mask the absence of dual gain architecture on the K-1MKii and give the appearance that Pentax is keeping up with its competitors. Let me be absolutely clear: I don't think the loss off contrast/detail caused by the forced NR Pentax is baking into RAWs is hugely significant. What I do find hugely significant is that Pentax is apparently relying on smoke and mirrors by processing RAWs to make the K-1MKii look like more of an upgrade over the K-1 than it actually is, and to trick people into thinking that Pentax is keeping up with its rivals in terms of High ISO performance. Pentax/Ricoh had been struggling financially, has been slow to release new products (2017 roadmapped 50mm and 85mm lenses come to mind) and had to send a message that inspired confidence in its customers. Baking NR into RAWs to make the K-1MKii superficially look better than it actually is (compared to the K-1) doesn't inspire confidence in me. It is funny to me all of the folks who want "purity" in their RAW files as though this is something pretty new. Pentax has had some smoothing of RAW files since the K5 (it kicked in at iso 1600 there). There is a perception that whatever the accelerator is doing, you could do yourself at home on your computer. That may be true if (a) you are willing to buy a piece of software like DXO (b) take the time to learn it and (c) take the time to run each image file that needs processing through it. For most people they would rather just take the easier path and they don't really care if there is a little bit of smoothing done their RAW files. As far as it being a trick to make people think Pentax is "keeping up with their competitors," there actually has been minimal advancement over time with regard to high iso performance. Current sensors, like those in the A9 don't actually test much better than the sensor in the K-1 -- in fact, they have lower sports iso scores. The big "advancement" lately is read out speed and I suppose it is something to get 20 frames a second of roughly K-1 performance, but certainly it doesn't translate into significantly better dynamic range or SNR below iso 6400.

05-17-2018, 03:31 AM	#48
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by alvaro_garcia You got my point finally. Er, thanks for that Originally posted by alvaro_garcia I'm a JPG shooter, that's why I'm refering to this example. I can show you the same shot (JPG) from the K1 with default settings and another one with increased clarity and sharpness. And compare both images with another two from my APS-C Nikon Coolpix A, one with default settings and another one with just increased sharpness. You will see the huge difference between the two shots from the K1: the one with default settings clearly "worse" than the two shots from the Nikon (the Nikon here "wins") and than the other shot from the K1. Besides, when you compare the K1 with increased clarity and sharpness with the two shots from the Nikon, the K1 "wins". I don't doubt it. For this reason, I see limited value in JPEG test shots unless they were to include all the different settings permutations, so that those interested can see what the camera's JPEG engine is capable of. The problem being (and I know you already appreciate this), default setting on every single camera will result in different levels of processing - there's no all-manufacturer standard on JPEG processing levels, so "0" on one camera could be "+3" on another, and "-2" on yet another. Even for those like yourself who prefer to shoot JPEG, the RAW test shots are - IMHO - more useful in assessing the image quality, since you know you can alter the in-camera settings for JPEG processing to suit...

05-17-2018, 04:03 AM - 2 Likes	#49
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	All this purity argument is just argument for its own sake. Raw should be just the garbage that comes out the sensor and the end user should be left to his own devices to find a way to churn it into an image...

05-17-2018, 09:00 AM	#51
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	To see different tastes in jpg processing go to the pp challenge thread. Its the same raw with different jpeg output by the time it makes it to the thread. Some people give multiple entries showing we can have multiple tastes at the same time. One day you prefer fish eggs the next mixed seafood or neither to stick with that analogy. Not sure if this is purely tangent or not but an interesting point non the less.