[Mallee Boy]

I had ordered the K1 Mk2...and I cancelled it after reading the dpr review. Not moving to another system, just sitting on the fence watching all the scurry and dust blowing around.

Much has been said.

Now I am wondering is it too much to ask of someone out there who owns (or has access to) both cameras...Adam perhaps?... to go out with the same lens, on the same day and do some in the field shooting in various situations and some astro, to put this discussion to bed once and for all.

No doubt I have been influenced by pixel peeping reviews from a source that has never cut the brand any favours (the constant reference to the size of the Mk2 in the dpr review is a glaring example of silly criticism when other cameras are very similar in bulk...and in so doing the reviewer brings his motivations into question). But I am genuinely concerned with the concept of applying some/any form of filtering to RAW files...that worries me because I do not understand it, thus I pull back.

So, come on, how about a real time, PRACTICAL review...... please ??

[enoeske]

I had ordered the K1 Mk2...and I cancelled it after reading the dpr review. Not moving to another system, just sitting on the fence watching all the scurry and dust blowing around.

Much has been said.

Now I am wondering is it too much to ask of someone out there who owns (or has access to) both cameras...Adam perhaps?... to go out with the same lens, on the same day and do some in the field shooting in various situations and some astro, to put this discussion to bed once and for all.

No doubt I have been influenced by pixel peeping reviews from a source that has never cut the brand any favours (the constant reference to the size of the Mk2 in the dpr review is a glaring example of silly criticism when other cameras are very similar in bulk...and in so doing the reviewer brings his motivations into question). But I am genuinely concerned with the concept of applying some/any form of filtering to RAW files...that worries me because I do not understand it, thus I pull back.

So, come on, how about a real time, PRACTICAL review...... please ??

send me a K1mII and I'll test out the astro

[Pentax Syntax]

I have both and have done quite a bit of normal light and low light shooting. I have a Meade 10” ACF SCT but have not shot with the K-1 for true astrophotography. Astrotracer gives similar results with both. It is my impression that the K-1 ii has slightly better noise control. Basically 6400 on the K-1 ii looks like 3200 on the K-1. Autofocus seems snappier for moving objects. I also really like the dynamic pixel shift for improving handheld landscapes. Pixel-peeping aside, I think the new camera is better for practical photography. I am strongly considering the upgrade of my K-1.

[swanlefitte]

So dpr has convinced another not to buy pentax with dubious tests and goal post shifting tactics.

[clackers]

I had ordered the K1 Mk2...and I cancelled it after reading the dpr review. Not moving to another system, just sitting on the fence watching all the scurry and dust blowing around.

Much has been said.

Now I am wondering is it too much to ask of someone out there who owns (or has access to) both cameras...Adam perhaps?... to go out with the same lens, on the same day and do some in the field shooting in various situations and some astro, to put this discussion to bed once and for all.

No doubt I have been influenced by pixel peeping reviews from a source that has never cut the brand any favours (the constant reference to the size of the Mk2 in the dpr review is a glaring example of silly criticism when other cameras are very similar in bulk...and in so doing the reviewer brings his motivations into question). But I am genuinely concerned with the concept of applying some/any form of filtering to RAW files...that worries me because I do not understand it, thus I pull back.

So, come on, how about a real time, PRACTICAL review...... please ??

So much angst, Mallee Boy - can't be good for you!

Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

K-1 II Dynamic Pixel Shift: First Impressions - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

[biz-engineer]

I have both and have done quite a bit of normal light and low light shooting. I have a Meade 10” ACF SCT but have not shot with the K-1 for true astrophotography. Astrotracer gives similar results with both. It is my impression that the K-1 ii has slightly better noise control. Basically 6400 on the K-1 ii looks like 3200 on the K-1. Autofocus seems snappier for moving objects. I also really like the dynamic pixel shift for improving handheld landscapes. Pixel-peeping aside, I think the new camera is better for practical photography. I am strongly considering the upgrade of my K-1.

I had ordered the K1 Mk2...and I cancelled it after reading the dpr review.

Camera manufacturers have laboratory measurement equipments calibrated to national standards, signal processing software and direct access to raw image data from the sensor that no other organization has. I wouldn't be surprised that the K1 mark II is truly an improved version of the K1. I wouldn't give too much credit to evaluations from Dpreview as they are more of a web marketing agency rather than a research organization.

[UncleVanya]

So dpr has convinced another not to buy pentax with dubious tests and goal post shifting tactics.

I think the op has stated his questions in a rational way and has not knee jerked and jumped. Kudos to those who offered links to data. It isn't unreasonable to ask and the op seems aware of bias at least.

[Adam]

I think the op has stated his questions in a rational way and has not knee jerked and jumped. Kudos to those who offered links to data. It isn't unreasonable to ask and the op seems aware of bias at least.

Yes, in light of the closure of the dedicated DPR thread, can we please keep this thread as objective as the replies we've gotten so far? That would be very helpful to the OP, and everyone else asking the same question.

[Mallee Boy]

So dpr has convinced another not to buy pentax with dubious tests and goal post shifting tactics.

Not at all. I AM Pentax and have been for a very long time. The fence I sit on is the one between the K1 & K1 Mk2...is it worth the upgrade or not? or wait for the new APSC. ? Fortuneately its not a barbed wire fence, so fairly comfortable up here.

---------- Post added 05-09-18 at 04:37 PM ----------

Thanks for all the replies, links I have seen...but would still love to see some actual side by side photo comparisons, same scene, same time, using the same lens....that surely would answer a lot of questions. ?

[keithg]

Not at all. I AM Pentax and have been for a very long time. The fence I sit on is the one between the K1 & K1 Mk2...is it worth the upgrade or not? or wait for the new APSC. ? Fortuneately its not a barbed wire fence, so fairly comfortable up here.

---------- Post added 05-09-18 at 04:37 PM ----------

Thanks for all the replies, links I have seen...but would still love to see some actual side by side photo comparisons, same scene, same time, using the same lens....that surely would answer a lot of questions. ?

G'day Grant. I have the K 1 and my wife has the KP. I think I can safely say I am the more experienced Photographer. Been doing it all my life. My wife is good and keeps getting better. She asks me what settings and I bark them out to her weather it be a wedding, landscape or Grandson shot. Her main lens she is using is the 16-85mm. On the K1, mine is 28-105mm. If I was to show you 50 random pics out of both camera's, you would probably like me pick out more KP shots than the K1. I then tried both lenses on the KP. Tripod, same subject and same diameter pics. Cant tell the difference. So I am thinking I should have got two KP's. K1 is good. No doubt about that but KP shades it.

Hopefully we will be down your way soon and you can try them both and see what you come up with.

Keith

[D1N0]

Anything below SO 640 is not filtered. If necessary you could shoot only up to iso 500 and use exposure compensation to shoot up to five stops higher than that.

[Binth]

I ordered a K-1 Mark II and got it on April 11th. I too am no expert on these things but one of the reasons I got it is I wanted to do more astrophotography and thought the improved iso would help. After reading all the back and forth I am more confused then ever if this will make astro photos worse then the older model or better? I only have two more days to return it and purchase a K-1 if this one "eats" stars or otherwise messes with images using longer exposures and higher iso.

I admit the dp review and some of the other K-1 threads are freaking me out

[BigMackCam]

I ordered a K-1 Mark II and got it on April 11th. I too am no expert on these things but one of the reasons I got it is I wanted to do more astrophotography and thought the improved iso would help. After reading all the back and forth I am more confused then ever if this will make astro photos worse then the older model or better? I only have two more days to return it and purchase a K-1 if this one "eats" stars or otherwise messes with images using longer exposures and higher iso.

I admit the dp review and some of the other K-1 threads are freaking me out

With respect, this is why I'm rarely an early-adopter on anything, photography-related or otherwise.

That aside... Many people talk about the Sony "star eater" issue as if it were some fatal flaw. But unless the photographer is taking shots for astronomical observation and/or scientific use, I don't understand why it's a problem. OK, so a handful of very tiny, very dim light points may be lost in an image. But who in their right minds counts stars when looking at photos? For the vast majority of photographers, it strikes me as a total non-issue.

So, even if the K-1II "suffers" from it (and we've seen no evidence thus far to suggest it might), does it really matter?

[CNunez]

With respect, this is why I'm rarely an early-adopter on anything, photography-related or otherwise.

That aside... Many people talk about the Sony "star eater" issue as if it were some fatal flaw. But unless the photographer is taking shots for astronomical observation and/or scientific use, I don't understand why it's a problem. OK, so a handful of very tiny, very dim light points may be lost in an image. But who in their right minds counts stars when looking at photos? For the vast majority of photographers, it strikes me as a total non-issue.

So, even if the K-1II "suffers" from it (and we've seen no evidence thus far to suggest it might), does it really matter?

what is the purpose of this forum if not to pixel peep and talk about things that have no impact on pictures?

Just like people complaining about not being able to severely underexpose a picture and retain detail, as if they don't understand how a sensor sees.

anyone taking pictures who either does it for a living or hobby will use any camera you put in their hands and make it work. I honestly don't get people on this forum at times.

[reh321]

I ordered a K-1 Mark II and got it on April 11th. I too am no expert on these things but one of the reasons I got it is I wanted to do more astrophotography and thought the improved iso would help. After reading all the back and forth I am more confused then ever if this will make astro photos worse then the older model or better? I only have two more days to return it and purchase a K-1 if this one "eats" stars or otherwise messes with images using longer exposures and higher iso.

I admit the dp review and some of the other K-1 threads are freaking me out

A picture of stars was posted here, and the photographer reported that nothing was missing, but I don't remember which thread this was in. If you're concerned, the best way to alleviate your fears is to take pictures and see if any star is missing.