[MJKoski]

If done correctly it should show the benefit of noise reduction far surpasses any marginal loss of edge detail.

Test which was on PF front page shows the issue. How 'bout that?

[monochrome]

Test which was on PF front page shows the issue. How 'bout that?

Yes, I saw that. What’s the big deal? I just don’t get it. No one complained about it for KP or K-70. It got raves on those cameras.

.:

[manishved]

I hope he uses the original MIJ FA 77 and not one of the newer ones (AIV) which dont have the same chemical composition of the glass elements.

[angerdan]

I hope he uses the original MIJ FA 77 and not one of the newer ones (AIV) which dont have the same chemical composition of the glass elements.

Can you explain this more detailed? Are there any objective sources regarding any glass differences between MIJ / AIV ?

---

Last edited by angerdan; 05-19-2018 at 12:22 AM.

[Kunzite]

My take-away from the recent messages is that is expected of members to be respectful whether the object of Intensely Respectful Comments is a member or not... yeah?

Respect is earned... and lost.

[Not a Number]

Yes, I saw that. What’s the big deal? I just don’t get it. No one complained about it for KP or K-70. It got raves on those cameras.

.:

As I recall the PF article said they applied 25% color noise filtering to the processing. If the K-1II Raw are cleaner to begin with say by 20% then the accumulative effect would be say 35-45% color noise filtering for the K-1II vs 25% for the K-1. Think that might make a difference?

[MJKoski]

At least Adobe Camera RAW does not destroy detail with its color noise removal. Luminance noise removal is the bad boy there and should be left to zero in most cases. Take away the default color noise removal, K-1 mk2 looks as bad as any 36MP Sony camera there is. Starting right from ISO 400 and up. RAW-Digger shows the image in all its glory (not).

[monochrome]

As I recall the PF article said they applied 25% color noise filtering to the processing. If the K-1II Raw are cleaner to begin with say by 20% then the accumulative effect would be say 35-45% color noise filtering for the K-1II vs 25% for the K-1. Think that might make a difference?

If. I sure don’t know. I know my KP RAW’s sure are nice.

Do you know? What do your eyes tell you? Can you print a 12,800 ISO night scene for normal viewing distance per print size that you couldn’t before? Are you a RAW purist? I don’t think it is possible for me to care less about what other people think about this. I shoot RAW+, manual SMC K lenses on FF K-mount. A couple DFA* / FA* / FA Lim for convenience. I print a little. I develop the good ones. I acc pt most of the jpegs.

They’re supposedly selling by 84,000 K-1’s a year. How many of hose people do you think even know this is happening? Until real world people show real world images both sides are posting measurbation arguments without measuring. Keep your K-1. Buy a K-1. Buy K-1M 2 / upgrade to one and shoot with it - or both - or don’t.

I still haven’t decided whether I need another camera with the AU just to get HHPS. Maybe I’ll sell KP and upgrade K-1. So far, so everything I read from everyone who has a K1M2 says it’s great.

[jpzk]

I hope he uses the original MIJ FA 77 and not one of the newer ones (AIV) which dont have the same chemical composition of the glass elements.

Would that really make any difference ???

[SSGGeezer]

If. I sure don’t know. I know my KP RAW’s sure are nice.

Ditto this. I have quite a few likes of my 12,800 ISO Hummingbird shots on my 500px page. If the clouds clear tonight, I may play in the frosty night air and try some Astro.

[Tan68]

Respect is earned... and lost.

True enough...

I think the better word to use is 'civil'
(where I grew up, 'respectful' is used as a synonym for 'civil' but it isn't always really used to mean exactly what the word means...)

Respectful behavior by many toward Mr Rishi is likely to be false after recent events and it also isn't good to lie.

Still can be civil :^)

[emsee]

Can you explain this more detailed? Are there any objective sources regarding any glass differences between MIJ/MIV ?

Ned Bunnell (former Pentax USA chief) had an article explaining that there is essentially no difference between MIJ and AIV (Assembled In Vietnam) Limited lenses. I heard that some of the very early versions of FA43mm (serial numbers less than 1000) are different (Thorium based glass). But other than that, MIJ and AIV versions are equal. Just like every other lenses there might be copy-to-copy variations but that is not very un-uncommon.

[manishved]

Ned Bunnell (former Pentax USA chief) had an article explaining that there is essentially no difference between MIJ and AIV (Assembled In Vietnam) Limited lenses. I heard that some of the very early versions of FA43mm (serial numbers less than 1000) are different (Thorium based glass). But other than that, MIJ and AIV versions are equal. Just like every other lenses there might be copy-to-copy variations but that is not very un-uncommon.

I love my FA77 MIJ and several years ago I did a comparison with the FA 77 AIV which produced great images anyways. I did see subtle differences in the colors and a slight (but noticable) difference in the "pop effect". I cant find the pics currently - I believe it was a K-7 or a K-5 I had back then.

[beholder3]

As the other thread :

dpr's K-1 II messed up review message now expanded by another confession
dpr's K-1 II messed up review message now expanded by another confession - PentaxForums.com

was closed, here is the key info to be able to pick it all up in this thread:


It should be noted that dpr's text hint where they documented that they will re-shoot the images seems to have been expanded by one important paragraph now:

To improve the degree of comparability between our results from the K-1 Mark II and the original K-1, we plan to re-shoot both cameras using a FA 77mm F1.8 Limited lens. This reshoot will use the same JPEG color mode as used on the original K-1.
We will, of course, re-visit the image quality commentary in our review as soon as we've been able to do this.

We must also note that, through a rare processing error, our ISO 12800 Raw image needed to be re-processed and uploaded in place of the original image.

That confession is in direct contradiction of the response of the responsible author / staff given first.

Read post #13 here: Weird stuff - changing files over time - PentaxForums.com when user silversalts asked about this exact thing happening and got a flat denial as answer.

There were defensive reader comments later on that certainly it would be unthinkable that dpr would swap the data files silently and then openly deny it if it actually happened.

Well. Not unthinkable but fact. Gives an impression on how credible some posts are.

Thanks to whomever at dpr to confess this silent file swapping now. That is much bigger than just admitting the lens choice was poor. Admitting it is actually showing some signs of professionalism.

[Tan68]

... here is the key info to be able to pick it all up in this thread: ...

Dude!! The thread you reference was recently closed because there was already a thread discussing the same topic, yes.

But this aint that thread!
Don't get this one closed, too!!! :^)

The thread already discussing the stuff in the recently closed thread is here : Dpreview admitted they screwed up the K1ii review... - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

+ I think I am linking to the other "DPR admitted they screwed up thread"...
The thread we are in right now is a little different.. or is it ??