Lonely speck review of the K-1II for astrophotography

**savoche** · 06-13-2018, 02:23 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Matchete

Actually I've noticed the same annoying magenta tint when the K-1 II files are pushed several stops.

But then I modified their exif info with Exiftool in order to fool Adobe Camera Raw (same demosaicing engine as Lightroom) into believing that they are K-1 files, and the magenta tint disappeared.

So you guessed that right

.

Interesting. You should leave a comment with his review

**sbh** · 06-13-2018, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Matchete

Actually I've noticed the same annoying magenta tint when the K-1 II files are pushed several stops.

But then I modified their exif info with Exiftool in order to fool Adobe Camera Raw (same demosaicing engine as Lightroom) into believing that they are K-1 files, and the magenta tint disappeared.

So you guessed that right

.

Interesting indeed. Is that magenta tint also there when you push the K-1 ii files with DCU?

Matchete · 06-13-2018, 02:49 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by savoche

Interesting. You should leave a comment with his review

Just did

.

Originally posted by sbh

Interesting indeed. Is that magenta tint also there when you push the K-1 ii files with DCU?

I only use DCU to convert PixelShift files into TIFF files before processing them with Photoshop, so I haven't tried to push regular RAW files with DCU. Actually I don't have a lot of faith in the shadow recovery engine of DCU

.

**Rondec** · 06-13-2018, 02:56 AM - **1 Like**

I just got a K-1 II last night and accidentally had it set to shoot PEF files, which of course Lightroom wouldn't open. I edited the EXIF to be the K-1 and they open just fine and I certainly don't see any weird tinting when pushing any iso.

**gaweidert** · 06-13-2018, 07:01 AM

I enjoy reviews like this. I understand the need for all the lab work and pixel peeping etc. I used to have to do those sorts of things myself, but just shooting photographs and seeing how they turn out is what it is all about. I think it pretty fair. Mirrors my experience with the K1. The K1-II s just a darn good camera. Maybe even a little bit better than my K1.

**Oakland Rob** · 06-16-2018, 01:40 PM - **1 Like**

For those interested in more info behind his iso invariance testing, see this: How to Find the Best ISO for Astrophotography: Dynamic Range and Noise – Lonely Speck

It's a great intro to low light shooting and how lack of light affects noise. And downstream noise, iso variance and invariance, etc. And BTW: note the Nikon 700d examples he uses; same magneta issue only at ISO 100. So yeah, perhaps an Lr issue when pushing the exposure.

SirTomster · 06-16-2018, 05:28 PM - **2 Likes**

So I saw Ian used the 28-105 kit lens to take some images in his article. Therefore I decided to test it out last night with my kit lens.

It is horrible. Why would you use this lens? /Sarcasm

Just some basic edits in Lightroom and Nik Collection in Photoshop.

Astrotracer on. 60 seconds 53mm ISO6400 f/5/6.

I also did some stacking images and a few pano's to remove the slight streaking at the edges. I would never have considered using the kit lens for astro. But that has changed.

normhead · 06-16-2018, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by SirTomster

So I saw Ian used the 28-105 kit lens to take some images in his article. Therefore I decided to test it out last night with my kit lens.

It is horrible. Why would you use this lens? /Sarcasm

Just some basic edits in Lightroom and Nik Collection in Photoshop.

Astrotracer on. 60 seconds 53mm ISO6400 f/5/6.

I also did some stacking images and a few pano's to remove the slight streaking at the edges. I would never have considered using the kit lens for astro. But that has changed.

At $500 it's a little more than most kit lenses.

Justin.APR · 06-16-2018, 06:39 PM - **1 Like**

I love seeing legit reviews of Pentax. They always come out with nothing but great things to say. Even unbias comparisons are rare but wonderful as well because Pentax almost always wins. The CameraVille youtube channel has some good videos displaying pentax capability.

Youtu.be

reh321 · 06-16-2018, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by SirTomster

So I saw Ian used the 28-105 kit lens to take some images in his article. Therefore I decided to test it out last night with my kit lens.

It is horrible. Why would you use this lens? /Sarcasm

Just some basic edits in Lightroom and Nik Collection in Photoshop.

Astrotracer on. 60 seconds 53mm ISO6400 f/5/6.

I also did some stacking images and a few pano's to remove the slight streaking at the edges. I would never have considered using the kit lens for astro. But that has changed.

"Kit lens" has an undeserved reputation. The "A" 50mm f/1.7 that was kitted with my Super Program in 1983 was very sharp. When I got my K-30, I tried that lens with it and got sharper images than I ever got with Kodachrome 25 - in other words, it was sharper than I had ever needed with that camera.

LensBeginner · 06-17-2018, 05:28 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reh321

"Kit lens" has an undeserved reputation. The "A" 50mm f/1.7 that was kitted with my Super Program in 1983 was very sharp. When I got my K-30, I tried that lens with it and got sharper images than I ever got with Kodachrome 25 - in other words, it was sharper than I had ever needed with that camera.

Well there's kit lenses and there's kit lenses...
When one costs more than 500€ like the D-FA 28-105mm, the name "kit lens" hardly applies...

I like my 50/1.7 (M) as well, but other cameras (not necessarily from Pentax) were sold with a 50/2 which could be "good enough" to "quite bad".

A film-era F 28-80mm (non-SMC) is an awful lens, and in this case the "kit" attribute is well-deserved...

**savoche** · 06-17-2018, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

Well there's kit lenses and there's kit lenses...
When one costs more than 500€ like the D-FA 28-105mm, the name "kit lens" hardly applies...

I like my 50/1.7 (M) as well, but other cameras (not necessarily from Pentax) were sold with a 50/2 which could be "good enough" to "quite bad".

A film-era F 28-80mm (non-SMC) is an awful lens, and in this case the "kit" attribute is well-deserved...

I've seen the K-1 sold with both the 15-30 and the 24-70 as a kit. Does that make them "kit lenses"?

LensBeginner · 06-17-2018, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by savoche

I've seen the K-1 sold with both the 15-30 and the 24-70 as a kit. Does that make them "kit lenses"?

They definitely don't qualify

**savoche** · 06-17-2018, 10:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by LensBeginner

They definitely don't qualify

It would make Pentax kit lenses better than anything else out there, though

SSGGeezer · 06-18-2018, 08:26 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

Hmm... no star eater detected. That's in contrast with DPR's "star eater on steroids" claim which was made without taking any astrophoto image.

It was a guess in the article or a comment by someone (I refuse to wade through that garbage to verify where.) Not an actual statement that it would be a star eater. Still a very ignorant comment, but hey, DPR is a haven for idiotic comments.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-1II review... Opportunity to get banned on DPR	robbiec	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	428	05-21-2018 02:49 AM
Dirt speck on framing glass	CRMassart	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	03-28-2010 03:08 PM
where's that speck of dust?	jv.pentax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	10-14-2009 06:12 AM
I think i have a speck on my lens....	MrApollinax	Post Your Photos!	7	02-26-2009 05:51 PM
DRAT IT...Found a speck.	NLAlston	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	02-01-2007 09:12 AM

06-13-2018, 02:23 AM - 1 Like	#31
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by Matchete Actually I've noticed the same annoying magenta tint when the K-1 II files are pushed several stops. But then I modified their exif info with Exiftool in order to fool Adobe Camera Raw (same demosaicing engine as Lightroom) into believing that they are K-1 files, and the magenta tint disappeared. So you guessed that right . Interesting. You should leave a comment with his review

06-13-2018, 02:39 AM	#32
sbh Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Black Forest, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 849	Originally posted by Matchete Actually I've noticed the same annoying magenta tint when the K-1 II files are pushed several stops. But then I modified their exif info with Exiftool in order to fool Adobe Camera Raw (same demosaicing engine as Lightroom) into believing that they are K-1 files, and the magenta tint disappeared. So you guessed that right . Interesting indeed. Is that magenta tint also there when you push the K-1 ii files with DCU?

06-13-2018, 02:49 AM - 2 Likes	#33
Matchete Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 134	Originally posted by savoche Interesting. You should leave a comment with his review Just did . Originally posted by sbh Interesting indeed. Is that magenta tint also there when you push the K-1 ii files with DCU? I only use DCU to convert PixelShift files into TIFF files before processing them with Photoshop, so I haven't tried to push regular RAW files with DCU. Actually I don't have a lot of faith in the shadow recovery engine of DCU .

06-13-2018, 02:56 AM - 1 Like	#34
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I just got a K-1 II last night and accidentally had it set to shoot PEF files, which of course Lightroom wouldn't open. I edited the EXIF to be the K-1 and they open just fine and I certainly don't see any weird tinting when pushing any iso.

06-13-2018, 07:01 AM	#35
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,325	I enjoy reviews like this. I understand the need for all the lab work and pixel peeping etc. I used to have to do those sorts of things myself, but just shooting photographs and seeing how they turn out is what it is all about. I think it pretty fair. Mirrors my experience with the K1. The K1-II s just a darn good camera. Maybe even a little bit better than my K1.

06-16-2018, 01:40 PM - 1 Like	#36
Oakland Rob Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Bay Area California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 798	For those interested in more info behind his iso invariance testing, see this: How to Find the Best ISO for Astrophotography: Dynamic Range and Noise – Lonely Speck It's a great intro to low light shooting and how lack of light affects noise. And downstream noise, iso variance and invariance, etc. And BTW: note the Nikon 700d examples he uses; same magneta issue only at ISO 100. So yeah, perhaps an Lr issue when pushing the exposure.

06-16-2018, 05:28 PM - 2 Likes	#37
SirTomster Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 416	So I saw Ian used the 28-105 kit lens to take some images in his article. Therefore I decided to test it out last night with my kit lens. It is horrible. Why would you use this lens? /Sarcasm Just some basic edits in Lightroom and Nik Collection in Photoshop. Astrotracer on. 60 seconds 53mm ISO6400 f/5/6. I also did some stacking images and a few pano's to remove the slight streaking at the edges. I would never have considered using the kit lens for astro. But that has changed.

06-16-2018, 05:58 PM	#38
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by SirTomster So I saw Ian used the 28-105 kit lens to take some images in his article. Therefore I decided to test it out last night with my kit lens. It is horrible. Why would you use this lens? /Sarcasm Just some basic edits in Lightroom and Nik Collection in Photoshop. Astrotracer on. 60 seconds 53mm ISO6400 f/5/6. I also did some stacking images and a few pano's to remove the slight streaking at the edges. I would never have considered using the kit lens for astro. But that has changed. At $500 it's a little more than most kit lenses.

06-16-2018, 06:58 PM	#40
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,179	Originally posted by SirTomster So I saw Ian used the 28-105 kit lens to take some images in his article. Therefore I decided to test it out last night with my kit lens. It is horrible. Why would you use this lens? /Sarcasm Just some basic edits in Lightroom and Nik Collection in Photoshop. Astrotracer on. 60 seconds 53mm ISO6400 f/5/6. I also did some stacking images and a few pano's to remove the slight streaking at the edges. I would never have considered using the kit lens for astro. But that has changed. "Kit lens" has an undeserved reputation. The "A" 50mm f/1.7 that was kitted with my Super Program in 1983 was very sharp. When I got my K-30, I tried that lens with it and got sharper images than I ever got with Kodachrome 25 - in other words, it was sharper than I had ever needed with that camera.

06-17-2018, 05:28 AM - 1 Like	#41
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by reh321 "Kit lens" has an undeserved reputation. The "A" 50mm f/1.7 that was kitted with my Super Program in 1983 was very sharp. When I got my K-30, I tried that lens with it and got sharper images than I ever got with Kodachrome 25 - in other words, it was sharper than I had ever needed with that camera. Well there's kit lenses and there's kit lenses... When one costs more than 500€ like the D-FA 28-105mm, the name "kit lens" hardly applies... I like my 50/1.7 (M) as well, but other cameras (not necessarily from Pentax) were sold with a 50/2 which could be "good enough" to "quite bad". A film-era F 28-80mm (non-SMC) is an awful lens, and in this case the "kit" attribute is well-deserved...

06-17-2018, 10:19 AM	#42
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by LensBeginner Well there's kit lenses and there's kit lenses... When one costs more than 500€ like the D-FA 28-105mm, the name "kit lens" hardly applies... I like my 50/1.7 (M) as well, but other cameras (not necessarily from Pentax) were sold with a 50/2 which could be "good enough" to "quite bad". A film-era F 28-80mm (non-SMC) is an awful lens, and in this case the "kit" attribute is well-deserved... I've seen the K-1 sold with both the 15-30 and the 24-70 as a kit. Does that make them "kit lenses"?

06-17-2018, 10:23 AM	#43
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by savoche I've seen the K-1 sold with both the 15-30 and the 24-70 as a kit. Does that make them "kit lenses"? They definitely don't qualify

06-17-2018, 10:49 AM - 1 Like	#44
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by LensBeginner They definitely don't qualify It would make Pentax kit lenses better than anything else out there, though

06-18-2018, 08:26 AM - 1 Like	#45
SSGGeezer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Indiana, U.S. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,845	Originally posted by Kunzite Hmm... no star eater detected. That's in contrast with DPR's "star eater on steroids" claim which was made without taking any astrophoto image. It was a guess in the article or a comment by someone (I refuse to wade through that garbage to verify where.) Not an actual statement that it would be a star eater. Still a very ignorant comment, but hey, DPR is a haven for idiotic comments.