DPR's K1ii Re-shoot is up: Score now 80%

**DDoram** · 06-01-2018, 07:43 AM

Letter from the reviews editor: Pentax K-1 Mark II studio scene re-shoot: Digital Photography Review

Kudos to DPR for re-shooting the studio scenes using the FA 77; final score not changed and they are not happy with RAW noise reduction.

Dale

**BigMackCam** · 06-01-2018, 08:41 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DDoram

Letter from the reviews editor: Pentax K-1 Mark II studio scene re-shoot: Digital Photography Review

Kudos to DPR for re-shooting the studio scenes using the FA 77; final score not changed and they are not happy with RAW noise reduction.

The K-1II test shots look so much better now, right across the frame. There's only the tiniest detail loss due to RAW NR at mid-range ISO levels

CDW · 06-01-2018, 10:08 AM - **2 Likes**

DPR turned the K1/K1 II comparison into click bait and Pentax bashing. It's apparent to me, comparing ISO 12800 images and far above the midrange ISO area, in my opinion, the K1 II not holds its own in real world resolution but generates less noise in the RAW file. Much ado about nothing so far as the noise issue is concerned.

leekil · 06-01-2018, 10:13 AM

It's hard to tell if it is detail loss or not; in some cases the K-1 has finer details in thin objects, whereas the K-1 is chunkier in that case. Which is more accurate?

Link here

---------- Post added 06-01-18 at 10:15 AM ----------

And the A7R III looks like it could also use a reshoot, or else it uses significant noise reduction.

Attached Images

**BigMackCam** · 06-01-2018, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by leekil

It's hard to tell if it is detail loss or not

I think that's exactly the point, right there... When it gets to the stage where it's truly debatable and very difficult to judge, whatever detail loss there may be is surely insignificant.

**BigMackCam** · 06-01-2018, 10:27 AM - **3 Likes**

It's more noticeable at higher ISOs... Here, at ISO 6400, you can see a bit of detail loss in the magenta and red woven material (especially the arm and body of the magenta coat). But this is a pixel-peeping 100% comparison, and the screenshot is enlarged for reproduction here...

MJKoski · 06-01-2018, 10:47 AM

Sony is misfocused in that sample above. That 42MP sensor is capable of producing sharp details at that ISO no matter how noisy it becomes. But that aside, that green mess whatever it is, shows the same issue as my rabbit image. It has both sharp(ened) edges and abruptly vanishing details next to each other which is not happening in mk-1 crop. It is more unpleasant to look than slightly misfocused details.

The Squirrel Mafia · 06-01-2018, 10:48 AM - **2 Likes**

^ Yes. That chip seems to work great on APS-C cameras, but no so much on FF cameras. The fine detail seems to get lost ever so slightly as the ISO climbs, but in the end, the IQ of the K-1II still beats the IQ of the K-70 & KP at similar ISOs. They should have put more effort into the AF system instead. That's one area that would have helped the K-1II a lot.

Hopefully they put more effort into the AF system of the upcoming K-3II replacement. They already have the IQ for it.

**clickclick** · 06-01-2018, 10:51 AM

I think my eyes are crossing looking back and forth. This is so close. While there seems to be a bit more detail in the read of the K1, the gray in the pants on the mark II might be better than on the mark 1, but I'm getting dizzy looking back and forth. Almost need a series of blind test images where you don't know what's what and pick them to come to a conclusion It would be interesting to run the mark I image through something like Topaz's DeNoise to see how it looked after doing that compared to the mark II without any tweaking.

And of course, this evaluation leaves out all the other features like improved AF and hand held pixel shift.

If there were a firmware update that let you turn off the accelerator or set when it kicked in, it would be a simple choice - mark II all the way.

Rico · 06-01-2018, 10:51 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

It's more noticeable at higher ISOs... Here, at ISO 6400, you can see a bit of detail loss in the magenta and red woven material (especially the arm and body of the magenta coat). But this is a pixel-peeping 100% comparison, and the screenshot is enlarged for reproduction here...

BigMackCam there isn't detail loss to the K-1MKII image the color noise is falsely seen as "more" detail in the K-1 image.

normhead · 06-01-2018, 10:55 AM - **3 Likes**

Looking at the above you really have to ask, which looks more like the original?

Two images

One softer, smoother, and showing little noise. The other, sharper more contrasty and full of noise. Both come from the same DNG file.

Personally, the problem, only the first one actually looks like the flower in question. The first one. The concept that the image with the most detail regardless of noise is at best the viewpoint of a very small minority. I will not publish or try to publish an image with that level of noise. All the things that make the image look sharper, increased contrast, increased dentition, sharpening, increase the appearance of sharpness, but it's not real, The image has the same resolution it always did. But all those things that increase the appearance of sharpness increase the level of sharpness , definition and contrast of the noise as well. The argument seems to me to be that the noisey appearance should be the default. Why? When you can increase the appearance of sharpness ib post production starting with the flatter image if that's what you want. The argument that the noisey image should be the default is crazy. The default is the default. The only question is can you get what you want out of it? I look at the images above, and the first thing I think is, I can make the image on theft look like the image on the right. I have no idea what's wrong with folks who think there's something in one that isn't in the other.

Which picture you like is completely personal preference, and it makes no difference which you prefer. My point is, you can get both out of a single image, all the raw determines is the starting point. And the assumption that there is detail in one that isn't in the other is just lying. Those determinations could only be made by a person who managed to take two files and get them to match for contrast, definition, sharpening and noise. The stuff that has been produced so far to make a point one way or the other is just garbage. There's just no polite way to put it.
All the folks on here who have tried to convince me they can't get what they want out of K-1 mkII files have me thinking they are pretty much incompetent at post processing. There is more than one way to look at their work. All this pseudo technical mumbo jumbo being tossed around is the work of amateurs including the "testers" over at DPR. The question is not, can I treat my k-1II files exactly like I treat my K-1 files and get the same result. You can't, big deal. You might have to develop some new import presets. But that's all I see.

According to all the self appointed experts here on the forum, my K-1 is sharper than my K-1. I should take my K-1 back and get a K-1. That's exactly what I just proved by the criteria posted. Sounds kinda stupid stated that way don't you think?

I will simply not show or print an image with the noise levels displayed in the second image period. It's a garbage image. Over processed, blown highlights, you name it. That others think Pentax should in some way enable this complete lack of photographic skill is nonsense. Contrast, sharpness and definition applied in PP is not the same as sharpness in the raw file. But all the arguments claiming the K-1 images are sharper have fallen into that trap. It's not about how the files come off the camera in cases like this. It's what you can do with it afterwards.
As for the assertion you want the noise and the detail rather than a more true to life rendering.. fine , show me an image where you think the noisy image is better, I and many others will simply say, we don't agree. It's not technical point. it's a point of preference that has nothing to do with technical abilities of the camera.

texandrews · 06-01-2018, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by leekil

It's hard to tell if it is detail loss or not; in some cases the K-1 has finer details in thin objects, whereas the K-1 is chunkier in that case. Which is more accurate?

Link here

---------- Post added 06-01-18 at 10:15 AM ----------

And the A7R III looks like it could also use a reshoot, or else it uses significant noise reduction.

Bear in mind that the whole office moved before the K1MKII shooting. So, likely those fine, fuzzy feathers moved. Another spot should be selected for comparison, I think.

**BigMackCam** · 06-01-2018, 11:04 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MJKoski

Sony is misfocused in that sample above. That 42MP sensor is capable of producing sharp details at that ISO no matter how noisy it becomes.

That in itself is quite interesting. I know we're discussing the K-1II, but given the accuracy of AF with Sony's mirrorless cameras, you have to wonder how it mis-focused (if that is indeed the case). Did the Sony show that it is, in fact, fallible too - or was this another error on DPR's part? With on-sensor PDAF points, it can't be an issue with AF fine adjustment...

Originally posted by MJKoski

But that aside, that green mess whatever it is, shows the same issue as my rabbit image. It has both sharp(ened) edges and abruptly vanishing details next to each other which is not happening in mk-1 crop. It is more unpleasant to look than slightly misfocused details.

I can definitely see some very minor detail loss and "fuzzing" due to NR. But it's going to be highly subjective as to whether it's remotely significant. I appreciate that for you, it is - but I suspect most people won't even notice it.

**SteveinSLC** · 06-01-2018, 12:55 PM

Yes, I'd agree. I think when looking really closely at a few areas in this test chart, I can see a few VERY small places where there is detail loss.
That said it requires extreme pixel peeping on a test chart. On a real world photo, such as the example Rondec posted above, I might well prefer a photo that has less noise, even if there are some tiny details that aren't as good. Even in the case of printing pretty large, like say 24x16.
And yes, it's possible with a bunch of post processing, one could do the same job at getting rid of a lot of noise, and maybe not lose the detail. But I don't put myself in the Lightroom/PS wizard category. It would probably take me hours to get there. I'd rather have the camera do it essentially instantly, even if it is only 99.99% as good from a detail perspective.

texandrews · 06-01-2018, 01:01 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by SteveinSLC

And yes, it's possible with a bunch of post processing, one could do the same job at getting rid of a lot of noise, and maybe not lose the detail. But I don't put myself in the Lightroom/PS wizard category. It would probably take me hours to get there. I'd rather have the camera do it essentially instantly, even if it is only 99.99% as good from a detail perspective.

I think it boils down to a usage thing for individual users. For what I will use my K1 upgraded for, fast turnaround is more important than faithfulness to micro detail, which I'd be shooting differently anyway. And my LR skills are ok, but when it comes to NR, I think each image has different needs, so dialing in presets for batching is much less reliable, imo. I'd rather the camera do it "well enough" for the higher ISO's I would need it.

06-01-2018, 07:43 AM	#1
DDoram Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada Posts: 632	DPR's K1ii Re-shoot is up: Score now 80% Letter from the reviews editor: Pentax K-1 Mark II studio scene re-shoot: Digital Photography Review Kudos to DPR for re-shooting the studio scenes using the FA 77; final score not changed and they are not happy with RAW noise reduction. Dale

06-01-2018, 10:08 AM - 2 Likes	#3
CDW Site Supporter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Big Island, Hawaii & Utah Posts: 457	DPR turned the K1/K1 II comparison into click bait and Pentax bashing. It's apparent to me, comparing ISO 12800 images and far above the midrange ISO area, in my opinion, the K1 II not holds its own in real world resolution but generates less noise in the RAW file. Much ado about nothing so far as the noise issue is concerned. Last edited by CDW; 06-01-2018 at 10:15 AM.

06-01-2018, 10:27 AM - 3 Likes	#6
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	It's more noticeable at higher ISOs... Here, at ISO 6400, you can see a bit of detail loss in the magenta and red woven material (especially the arm and body of the magenta coat). But this is a pixel-peeping 100% comparison, and the screenshot is enlarged for reproduction here... Attached Images

06-01-2018, 10:55 AM - 3 Likes	#11
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Looking at the above you really have to ask, which looks more like the original? Two images One softer, smoother, and showing little noise. The other, sharper more contrasty and full of noise. Both come from the same DNG file. Personally, the problem, only the first one actually looks like the flower in question. The first one. The concept that the image with the most detail regardless of noise is at best the viewpoint of a very small minority. I will not publish or try to publish an image with that level of noise. All the things that make the image look sharper, increased contrast, increased dentition, sharpening, increase the appearance of sharpness, but it's not real, The image has the same resolution it always did. But all those things that increase the appearance of sharpness increase the level of sharpness , definition and contrast of the noise as well. The argument seems to me to be that the noisey appearance should be the default. Why? When you can increase the appearance of sharpness ib post production starting with the flatter image if that's what you want. The argument that the noisey image should be the default is crazy. The default is the default. The only question is can you get what you want out of it? I look at the images above, and the first thing I think is, I can make the image on theft look like the image on the right. I have no idea what's wrong with folks who think there's something in one that isn't in the other. Which picture you like is completely personal preference, and it makes no difference which you prefer. My point is, you can get both out of a single image, all the raw determines is the starting point. And the assumption that there is detail in one that isn't in the other is just lying. Those determinations could only be made by a person who managed to take two files and get them to match for contrast, definition, sharpening and noise. The stuff that has been produced so far to make a point one way or the other is just garbage. There's just no polite way to put it. All the folks on here who have tried to convince me they can't get what they want out of K-1 mkII files have me thinking they are pretty much incompetent at post processing. There is more than one way to look at their work. All this pseudo technical mumbo jumbo being tossed around is the work of amateurs including the "testers" over at DPR. The question is not, can I treat my k-1II files exactly like I treat my K-1 files and get the same result. You can't, big deal. You might have to develop some new import presets. But that's all I see. According to all the self appointed experts here on the forum, my K-1 is sharper than my K-1. I should take my K-1 back and get a K-1. That's exactly what I just proved by the criteria posted. Sounds kinda stupid stated that way don't you think? I will simply not show or print an image with the noise levels displayed in the second image period. It's a garbage image. Over processed, blown highlights, you name it. That others think Pentax should in some way enable this complete lack of photographic skill is nonsense. Contrast, sharpness and definition applied in PP is not the same as sharpness in the raw file. But all the arguments claiming the K-1 images are sharper have fallen into that trap. It's not about how the files come off the camera in cases like this. It's what you can do with it afterwards. As for the assertion you want the noise and the detail rather than a more true to life rendering.. fine , show me an image where you think the noisy image is better, I and many others will simply say, we don't agree. It's not technical point. it's a point of preference that has nothing to do with technical abilities of the camera. Last edited by normhead; 06-01-2018 at 11:24 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hot off the presses: DPR to re-shoot its K1mkII test.	texandrews	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	107	06-02-2018 06:00 AM
Is K1ii better than K1 for capturing moving subjects?	Billk	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	12	06-01-2018 11:34 AM
Dpreview admitted they screwed up the K1ii review...	Cambo	Pentax DSLR Discussion	25	05-19-2018 03:19 AM
Will my K1ii ship on the 11th of April or ????	jtstgeorge	Pentax Full Frame	11	04-02-2018 07:57 PM
K1ii's "Dynamic Pixel Shift" Will Put A Premium On Small High-Quality Lenses	Fenwoodian	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	36	03-06-2018 01:39 PM

06-01-2018, 08:41 AM - 1 Like	#2
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by DDoram Letter from the reviews editor: Pentax K-1 Mark II studio scene re-shoot: Digital Photography Review Kudos to DPR for re-shooting the studio scenes using the FA 77; final score not changed and they are not happy with RAW noise reduction. The K-1II test shots look so much better now, right across the frame. There's only the tiniest detail loss due to RAW NR at mid-range ISO levels

06-01-2018, 10:13 AM	#4
leekil Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,003	It's hard to tell if it is detail loss or not; in some cases the K-1 has finer details in thin objects, whereas the K-1 is chunkier in that case. Which is more accurate? Link here ---------- Post added 06-01-18 at 10:15 AM ---------- And the A7R III looks like it could also use a reshoot, or else it uses significant noise reduction. Attached Images

06-01-2018, 10:21 AM	#5
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by leekil It's hard to tell if it is detail loss or not I think that's exactly the point, right there... When it gets to the stage where it's truly debatable and very difficult to judge, whatever detail loss there may be is surely insignificant.

06-01-2018, 10:47 AM	#7
MJKoski Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 1,784	Sony is misfocused in that sample above. That 42MP sensor is capable of producing sharp details at that ISO no matter how noisy it becomes. But that aside, that green mess whatever it is, shows the same issue as my rabbit image. It has both sharp(ened) edges and abruptly vanishing details next to each other which is not happening in mk-1 crop. It is more unpleasant to look than slightly misfocused details.

06-01-2018, 10:48 AM - 2 Likes	#8
The Squirrel Mafia Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 3,054	^ Yes. That chip seems to work great on APS-C cameras, but no so much on FF cameras. The fine detail seems to get lost ever so slightly as the ISO climbs, but in the end, the IQ of the K-1II still beats the IQ of the K-70 & KP at similar ISOs. They should have put more effort into the AF system instead. That's one area that would have helped the K-1II a lot. Hopefully they put more effort into the AF system of the upcoming K-3II replacement. They already have the IQ for it.

06-01-2018, 10:51 AM	#9
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	I think my eyes are crossing looking back and forth. This is so close. While there seems to be a bit more detail in the read of the K1, the gray in the pants on the mark II might be better than on the mark 1, but I'm getting dizzy looking back and forth. Almost need a series of blind test images where you don't know what's what and pick them to come to a conclusion It would be interesting to run the mark I image through something like Topaz's DeNoise to see how it looked after doing that compared to the mark II without any tweaking. And of course, this evaluation leaves out all the other features like improved AF and hand held pixel shift. If there were a firmware update that let you turn off the accelerator or set when it kicked in, it would be a simple choice - mark II all the way.

06-01-2018, 10:51 AM - 2 Likes	#10
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,204	Originally posted by BigMackCam It's more noticeable at higher ISOs... Here, at ISO 6400, you can see a bit of detail loss in the magenta and red woven material (especially the arm and body of the magenta coat). But this is a pixel-peeping 100% comparison, and the screenshot is enlarged for reproduction here... BigMackCam there isn't detail loss to the K-1MKII image the color noise is falsely seen as "more" detail in the K-1 image.

06-01-2018, 11:02 AM	#12
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,390	Originally posted by leekil It's hard to tell if it is detail loss or not; in some cases the K-1 has finer details in thin objects, whereas the K-1 is chunkier in that case. Which is more accurate? Link here ---------- Post added 06-01-18 at 10:15 AM ---------- And the A7R III looks like it could also use a reshoot, or else it uses significant noise reduction. Bear in mind that the whole office moved before the K1MKII shooting. So, likely those fine, fuzzy feathers moved. Another spot should be selected for comparison, I think.

06-01-2018, 11:04 AM - 1 Like	#13
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by MJKoski Sony is misfocused in that sample above. That 42MP sensor is capable of producing sharp details at that ISO no matter how noisy it becomes. That in itself is quite interesting. I know we're discussing the K-1II, but given the accuracy of AF with Sony's mirrorless cameras, you have to wonder how it mis-focused (if that is indeed the case). Did the Sony show that it is, in fact, fallible too - or was this another error on DPR's part? With on-sensor PDAF points, it can't be an issue with AF fine adjustment... Originally posted by MJKoski But that aside, that green mess whatever it is, shows the same issue as my rabbit image. It has both sharp(ened) edges and abruptly vanishing details next to each other which is not happening in mk-1 crop. It is more unpleasant to look than slightly misfocused details. I can definitely see some very minor detail loss and "fuzzing" due to NR. But it's going to be highly subjective as to whether it's remotely significant. I appreciate that for you, it is - but I suspect most people won't even notice it.

06-01-2018, 12:55 PM	#14
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	Yes, I'd agree. I think when looking really closely at a few areas in this test chart, I can see a few VERY small places where there is detail loss. That said it requires extreme pixel peeping on a test chart. On a real world photo, such as the example Rondec posted above, I might well prefer a photo that has less noise, even if there are some tiny details that aren't as good. Even in the case of printing pretty large, like say 24x16. And yes, it's possible with a bunch of post processing, one could do the same job at getting rid of a lot of noise, and maybe not lose the detail. But I don't put myself in the Lightroom/PS wizard category. It would probably take me hours to get there. I'd rather have the camera do it essentially instantly, even if it is only 99.99% as good from a detail perspective.

06-01-2018, 01:01 PM - 1 Like	#15
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,390	Originally posted by SteveinSLC And yes, it's possible with a bunch of post processing, one could do the same job at getting rid of a lot of noise, and maybe not lose the detail. But I don't put myself in the Lightroom/PS wizard category. It would probably take me hours to get there. I'd rather have the camera do it essentially instantly, even if it is only 99.99% as good from a detail perspective. I think it boils down to a usage thing for individual users. For what I will use my K1 upgraded for, fast turnaround is more important than faithfulness to micro detail, which I'd be shooting differently anyway. And my LR skills are ok, but when it comes to NR, I think each image has different needs, so dialing in presets for batching is much less reliable, imo. I'd rather the camera do it "well enough" for the higher ISO's I would need it.