B&H Pixel Shift Review - Terrible K1 PS Image used.

**interested_observer** · 05-13-2018, 04:42 PM - **1 Like**

B&H Photo produced a Pixel Shift comparison using Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic bodies. The review was overall pretty good in terms of the actual write-up. However, the example pixel shifted image that they used from the K1 is absolutely terrible in comparison to the others. It appears that there is some blur in it.

Pixel-Shift Shootout: Olympus vs. Pentax vs. Sony vs. Panasonic | B&H Explora

madbrain · 05-13-2018, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by interested_observer

B&H Photo produced a Pixel Shift comparison using Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic bodies. The review was overall pretty good in terms of the actual write-up. However, the example pixel shifted image that they used from the K1 is absolutely terrible in comparison to the others. It appears that there is some blur in it.

Pixel-Shift Shootout: Olympus vs. Pentax vs. Sony vs. Panasonic | B&H Explora

Not sure about this, could be optics. One thing I can say is this :
"Figure 12. Detail comparison at output size from each camera" looks wrong.
For example, K-1 outputs 7360 x 4912 whereas A7R III outputs 7952 x 5304 .
That means the full Sony image should be about 8% larger in each dimension vs Pentax. That is the difference in sensor resolution.
I could tell with the naked eye that the Sony image looked too large relative to the Pentax.

So, I downloaded the figure 12 image and did crops.
A crop of the K-1 image done on my PC reveals it is about 224x188 .
Whereas the Sony image is 295x247.

The Sony image should be 8% larger in each dimension. But it is actually about 31% larger.
This probably comes down to different focal lengths or lenses being used.
The K-1 image was shot with a 15-30 zoom, and A7R III with 16-35 zoom. B&H should have been able to match the focal length between those two cameras, but they didn't.
The Sony was zoomed in much closer than the Pentax. Of course it will have more detail, in addition to having a higher resolution sensor.

I just posted this comment at B&H . Also find it a bit strange that they would just now come up with a K-1 comparison, when the K-1 came out two years ago. The A7R III came out about 6 months ago.
K-1 II was already out by the time B&H posted their review one month ago.

The other odd thing is that the A7R III is at a very different price point than the other 3 cameras. The two micro 4/3 cameras and original K-1 are all $1700, whereas the A7R III is $3200, nearly twice the price . They really in different price categories. The A7 III at $2000 should have been in the review.

**monochrome** · 05-13-2018, 05:54 PM - **1 Like**

Given that Sony takes influential reviewers on Press Junkets, do you suppose there is some intentional dissimulation here?

madbrain · 05-13-2018, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Given that Sony takes influential reviewers on Press Nunkets, do you suppose there is some intentional dissimulation here?

I'm not making any suppositions, just observing that this aspect of the test is flawed.

surfar · 05-13-2018, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by madbrain

The A7 III at $2000 should have been in the review.

Pixel shifted images with that camera are as rare as HENS TEETH!

Actually, even rarer seeing its a feature not included on that body.

madbrain · 05-13-2018, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by surfar

Pixel shifted images with that camera are as rare as HENS TEETH!

Actually, even rarer seeing its a feature not included on that body.

And apparently, there is a shooting delay between each of the 4 frames in the A7R III PixelShift mode.

Looks like it was 1s before, and now a revolutionary 1s !
Sony reduces Pixel Shift interval to 0.5 seconds in a7R lll: Digital Photography Review

Of course, K-1 / K-1 II have no such delay, even for tripod mode. And can do the processing in-camera also.

surfar · 05-13-2018, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by madbrain

Of course, K-1 / K-1 II have no such delay, even for tripod mode. And can do the processing in-camera also.

Yes, its $$$ony's first go at it...i'm sure their engineers will develop in camera processing,$$$ooner or later.

The big disadvantage of $$$onys way is that the images are not labelled PS,so you have to find which ones go with which.Thats easy if its different scenes but if you take numerous shots of the same stuff,then good luck!

teiki arii · 05-13-2018, 11:55 PM - **1 Like**

I do not understand why testers do not use the excellent Sigma Art 35/1.4 which is available in all brands for FF cameras?
Besides, they do not say which software they use and results can be the opposite according to this particularity...

surfar · 05-14-2018, 12:44 AM

I'm sure DPR would like to use a high quality prime to test the Pentax FF, but they are not released yet.

I could imagine what different forums would say about testing a camera using a 3rd party lens!

Kunzite · 05-14-2018, 12:48 AM

Nice try. The forums would say what they say about Imaging Resource testing with a Sigma 70mm.

teiki arii · 05-14-2018, 12:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by surfar

I could imagine what different forums would say about testing a camera using a 3rd party lens!

Nothing except that this way would prevent another bias... Am I wrong?

PS: most of my lenses are Leica-R lenses and I am very happy with Pentax K-1 vs Canon and Nikon Gear...

surfar · 05-14-2018, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by teiki arii

Nothing except that this way would prevent another bias... Am I wrong?

No, not wrong,probably right but the testers would be ostracised for using a 3rd party.As it was they used different lenses to test 1&2 and thats caused lots of conjecture.

teiki arii · 05-14-2018, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by surfar

No, not wrong,probably right but the testers would be ostracised for using a 3rd party. As it was they used different lenses to test 1&2 and thats caused lots of conjecture.

testers or brands?

Rickster · 05-14-2018, 07:20 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by madbrain

Not sure about this, could be optics. One thing I can say is this :
"Figure 12. Detail comparison at output size from each camera" looks wrong.
For example, K-1 outputs 7360 x 4912 whereas A7R III outputs 7952 x 5304 .
That means the full Sony image should be about 8% larger in each dimension vs Pentax. That is the difference in sensor resolution.
I could tell with the naked eye that the Sony image looked too large relative to the Pentax.

So, I downloaded the figure 12 image and did crops.
A crop of the K-1 image done on my PC reveals it is about 224x188 .
Whereas the Sony image is 295x247.

The Sony image should be 8% larger in each dimension. But it is actually about 31% larger.
This probably comes down to different focal lengths or lenses being used.
The K-1 image was shot with a 15-30 zoom, and A7R III with 16-35 zoom. B&H should have been able to match the focal length between those two cameras, but they didn't.
The Sony was zoomed in much closer than the Pentax. Of course it will have more detail, in addition to having a higher resolution sensor.

I just posted this comment at B&H . Also find it a bit strange that they would just now come up with a K-1 comparison, when the K-1 came out two years ago. The A7R III came out about 6 months ago.
K-1 II was already out by the time B&H posted their review one month ago.

The other odd thing is that the A7R III is at a very different price point than the other 3 cameras. The two micro 4/3 cameras and original K-1 are all $1700, whereas the A7R III is $3200, nearly twice the price . They really in different price categories. The A7 III at $2000 should have been in the review.

I posted ...

Julien P. Has made an important point. Really can not compare images for 'resolution' if they were taken at different focal lengths let alone different glass. Just what are we comparing? Some basic flaws here in methodology.

**SteveinSLC** · 05-14-2018, 09:35 AM - **1 Like**

Anyone that would criticize DPR for using a single lens to compare across brands doesn't understand proper scientific testing methods. The idea is to do everything you can to reduce variables across the things being compared.
The Sigma 35 Art would be a great choice for this. It's well regarded as a high quality lens, and it's available for most mounts/brands.

05-13-2018, 04:42 PM - 1 Like	#1
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	B&H Pixel Shift Review - Terrible K1 PS Image used. B&H Photo produced a Pixel Shift comparison using Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic bodies. The review was overall pretty good in terms of the actual write-up. However, the example pixel shifted image that they used from the K1 is absolutely terrible in comparison to the others. It appears that there is some blur in it. Pixel-Shift Shootout: Olympus vs. Pentax vs. Sony vs. Panasonic \| B&H Explora

05-13-2018, 05:45 PM	#2
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by interested_observer B&H Photo produced a Pixel Shift comparison using Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic bodies. The review was overall pretty good in terms of the actual write-up. However, the example pixel shifted image that they used from the K1 is absolutely terrible in comparison to the others. It appears that there is some blur in it. Pixel-Shift Shootout: Olympus vs. Pentax vs. Sony vs. Panasonic \| B&H Explora Not sure about this, could be optics. One thing I can say is this : "Figure 12. Detail comparison at output size from each camera" looks wrong. For example, K-1 outputs 7360 x 4912 whereas A7R III outputs 7952 x 5304 . That means the full Sony image should be about 8% larger in each dimension vs Pentax. That is the difference in sensor resolution. I could tell with the naked eye that the Sony image looked too large relative to the Pentax. So, I downloaded the figure 12 image and did crops. A crop of the K-1 image done on my PC reveals it is about 224x188 . Whereas the Sony image is 295x247. The Sony image should be 8% larger in each dimension. But it is actually about 31% larger. This probably comes down to different focal lengths or lenses being used. The K-1 image was shot with a 15-30 zoom, and A7R III with 16-35 zoom. B&H should have been able to match the focal length between those two cameras, but they didn't. The Sony was zoomed in much closer than the Pentax. Of course it will have more detail, in addition to having a higher resolution sensor. I just posted this comment at B&H . Also find it a bit strange that they would just now come up with a K-1 comparison, when the K-1 came out two years ago. The A7R III came out about 6 months ago. K-1 II was already out by the time B&H posted their review one month ago. The other odd thing is that the A7R III is at a very different price point than the other 3 cameras. The two micro 4/3 cameras and original K-1 are all $1700, whereas the A7R III is $3200, nearly twice the price . They really in different price categories. The A7 III at $2000 should have been in the review. Last edited by madbrain; 05-13-2018 at 05:57 PM.

05-13-2018, 05:54 PM - 1 Like	#3
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Given that Sony takes influential reviewers on Press Junkets, do you suppose there is some intentional dissimulation here? Last edited by monochrome; 05-13-2018 at 08:07 PM.

05-14-2018, 12:44 AM	#9
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	ha ha I'm sure DPR would like to use a high quality prime to test the Pentax FF, but they are not released yet. I could imagine what different forums would say about testing a camera using a 3rd party lens!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K1/Samyang 24mm Tilt/Shift and Pixel Shift	DDoram	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	6	12-14-2021 06:47 PM
Is it possible to extract the individual PS images from a combined PS image	Craigbob	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	04-16-2017 01:32 AM
K1 Pixel shift greyed out	jeffmsc	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	02-21-2017 07:54 AM
Pixel Shift single image extraction from RAW using Fast Stone Image Viewer	rgknief60	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	3	08-18-2016 02:37 PM
K1 pixel shift question	Franc	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	21	05-29-2016 11:52 AM

05-13-2018, 06:29 PM	#4
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by monochrome Given that Sony takes influential reviewers on Press Nunkets, do you suppose there is some intentional dissimulation here? I'm not making any suppositions, just observing that this aspect of the test is flawed.

05-13-2018, 07:49 PM	#5
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Originally posted by madbrain The A7 III at $2000 should have been in the review. Pixel shifted images with that camera are as rare as HENS TEETH! Actually, even rarer seeing its a feature not included on that body.

05-13-2018, 10:06 PM	#6
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by surfar Pixel shifted images with that camera are as rare as HENS TEETH! Actually, even rarer seeing its a feature not included on that body. And apparently, there is a shooting delay between each of the 4 frames in the A7R III PixelShift mode. Looks like it was 1s before, and now a revolutionary 1s ! Sony reduces Pixel Shift interval to 0.5 seconds in a7R lll: Digital Photography Review Of course, K-1 / K-1 II have no such delay, even for tripod mode. And can do the processing in-camera also.

05-13-2018, 10:39 PM	#7
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Originally posted by madbrain Of course, K-1 / K-1 II have no such delay, even for tripod mode. And can do the processing in-camera also. Yes, its $$$ony's first go at it...i'm sure their engineers will develop in camera processing,$$$ooner or later. The big disadvantage of $$$onys way is that the images are not labelled PS,so you have to find which ones go with which.Thats easy if its different scenes but if you take numerous shots of the same stuff,then good luck!

05-13-2018, 11:55 PM - 1 Like	#8
teiki arii Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 689	I do not understand why testers do not use the excellent Sigma Art 35/1.4 which is available in all brands for FF cameras? Besides, they do not say which software they use and results can be the opposite according to this particularity...

05-14-2018, 12:48 AM	#10
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Nice try. The forums would say what they say about Imaging Resource testing with a Sigma 70mm.

05-14-2018, 12:55 AM - 1 Like	#11
teiki arii Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 689	Originally posted by surfar I could imagine what different forums would say about testing a camera using a 3rd party lens! Nothing except that this way would prevent another bias... Am I wrong? PS: most of my lenses are Leica-R lenses and I am very happy with Pentax K-1 vs Canon and Nikon Gear...

05-14-2018, 01:11 AM	#12
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Originally posted by teiki arii Nothing except that this way would prevent another bias... Am I wrong? No, not wrong,probably right but the testers would be ostracised for using a 3rd party.As it was they used different lenses to test 1&2 and thats caused lots of conjecture.

05-14-2018, 02:06 AM	#13
teiki arii Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 689	Originally posted by surfar No, not wrong,probably right but the testers would be ostracised for using a 3rd party. As it was they used different lenses to test 1&2 and thats caused lots of conjecture. testers or brands?

05-14-2018, 07:20 AM - 1 Like	#14
Rickster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SE Idaho - Rocky Mtns Photos: Gallery Posts: 580	Originally posted by madbrain Not sure about this, could be optics. One thing I can say is this : "Figure 12. Detail comparison at output size from each camera" looks wrong. For example, K-1 outputs 7360 x 4912 whereas A7R III outputs 7952 x 5304 . That means the full Sony image should be about 8% larger in each dimension vs Pentax. That is the difference in sensor resolution. I could tell with the naked eye that the Sony image looked too large relative to the Pentax. So, I downloaded the figure 12 image and did crops. A crop of the K-1 image done on my PC reveals it is about 224x188 . Whereas the Sony image is 295x247. The Sony image should be 8% larger in each dimension. But it is actually about 31% larger. This probably comes down to different focal lengths or lenses being used. The K-1 image was shot with a 15-30 zoom, and A7R III with 16-35 zoom. B&H should have been able to match the focal length between those two cameras, but they didn't. The Sony was zoomed in much closer than the Pentax. Of course it will have more detail, in addition to having a higher resolution sensor. I just posted this comment at B&H . Also find it a bit strange that they would just now come up with a K-1 comparison, when the K-1 came out two years ago. The A7R III came out about 6 months ago. K-1 II was already out by the time B&H posted their review one month ago. The other odd thing is that the A7R III is at a very different price point than the other 3 cameras. The two micro 4/3 cameras and original K-1 are all $1700, whereas the A7R III is $3200, nearly twice the price . They really in different price categories. The A7 III at $2000 should have been in the review. I posted ... Julien P. Has made an important point. Really can not compare images for 'resolution' if they were taken at different focal lengths let alone different glass. Just what are we comparing? Some basic flaws here in methodology.

05-14-2018, 09:35 AM - 1 Like	#15
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	Anyone that would criticize DPR for using a single lens to compare across brands doesn't understand proper scientific testing methods. The idea is to do everything you can to reduce variables across the things being compared. The Sigma 35 Art would be a great choice for this. It's well regarded as a high quality lens, and it's available for most mounts/brands.