[tax]

How many people ordinarily

Put a 150-450 on it and shoot moving targets?

If you do it routinely, my hat goes off to you.
Most of the people just put a zoom lens something 28 - 70 or 105 and shoot whatever interesting comes their way.
As for the

stop better noise performance with the Mark II

if you shoot RAW only it really doesn't matter much. You just apply proper noise reduction filter / algorithm in post processing either to the whole image or masked area of it as needed. I use Darktable on Linux for this purpose.
I am not arguing with you that

The dynamic pixel shift is very handy.

but how to process its composite RAW image outside of the camera?
Please take a look at this review: PENTAX K-1 Mark II????????K-1??????????DPReview?????????? - ?????
just enable translation from Japanese to English in your browser.
Then go to Comparative image of ISO 800, 3200, 25600 section of it and compare night images between K-1 II and K-1.
You will notice that K-1 images though more grainy, provide better fine details and resolution than K-1 II images.
Inability to adjust or turn off the accelerator unit by the user when needed is my greatest biff against K-1 II.

[surfar]

Youtuber

CameraVille does plenty of Pentax stuff.Consider his opinion.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---------- Post added 09-25-18 at 05:40 PM ----------

"Kingman"

Yes,

I'm back to thinking about upgrading the body....

the price is a bit steep just to get slightly better autofocus.

...........................................

[Dericali]

To be cynical, another reason to do the upgrade is that it wipes the shutter count, so you can sell it second hand and claim '6,670 actuations'

*WINK*

[Pikselisiirto]

Pentax said that accelerator noise reduction has more data for processing than what there is in a RAW file. This should mean that it is impossible to get same or better results from a RAW file. I'm really interested to know, if this is true or is it just a convenient feature which you cannot turn off. Same thing with dynamic pixel shift (image stacking) which suppose to use IBIS readings for alignment, but does image stacking provide same results anyway? They gave promising features, but the truth is vague at the moment. Improved AF might be just a better algorithm which they could add to K-1 or they use accelerator to do more complex AF calculations. How much there is difference especially with AF tracking when the target pass infinity focus area and is coming closer and closer to your camera? This is where K-1 AF is unstable, right?

[tax]

CameraVille does plenty of Pentax stuff.Consider his opinion.

This dude is just a buffoon. He could equally review house vacuums just to promote himself.

---------- Post added 09-25-18 at 12:30 PM ----------

Pentax said that accelerator noise reduction has more data for processing than what there is in a RAW file. This should mean that it is impossible to get same or better results from a RAW file. I'm really interested to know, if this is true or is it just a convenient feature which you cannot turn off. Same thing with dynamic pixel shift (image stacking) which suppose to use IBIS readings for alignment, but does image stacking provide same results anyway? They gave promising features, but the truth is vague at the moment. Improved AF might be just a better algorithm which they could add to K-1 or they use accelerator to do more complex AF calculations. How much there is difference especially with AF tracking when the target pass infinity focus area and is coming closer and closer to your camera? This is where K-1 AF is unstable, right?

It very well may be that the accelerator unit deliberately filters out or selects what data will be passed to the Prime IV processor before it is recorded into a RAW file. In this respect yes, the RAW file will contain less data than initially was read from the sensor. However, the Prime IV processor itself further modifies image data before writing it into the RAW file as well. If you just write whatever data you can read from the sensor into a RAW file, it is going to be quite large and with a lot of digital garbage and noise that will be very hard to deal with, if possible at all, in the post processing. So what we call a RAW file, it is already "cooked" to a certain degree by the camera processor.
As for the AF, no one precisely knows whether the accelerator unit plays any role in it. Judging by 0.5 sec AF improvements with screw drive lenses and almost no gain with SDM lenses, my guess is that Ricoh engineers allowed more current draw for the AF motor to make it more responsive. And may be some improvements in the focusing algorithms on the software level.

[derekkite]

How many people ordinarily If you do it routinely, my hat goes off to you.
Most of the people just put a zoom lens something 28 - 70 or 105 and shoot whatever interesting comes their way.
As for the if you shoot RAW only it really doesn't matter much. You just apply proper noise reduction filter / algorithm in post processing either to the whole image or masked area of it as needed. I use Darktable on Linux for this purpose.
I am not arguing with you that but how to process its composite RAW image outside of the camera?
Please take a look at this review: PENTAX K-1 Mark II????????K-1??????????DPReview?????????? - ?????
just enable translation from Japanese to English in your browser.
Then go to Comparative image of ISO 800, 3200, 25600 section of it and compare night images between K-1 II and K-1.
You will notice that K-1 images though more grainy, provide better fine details and resolution than K-1 II images.
Inability to adjust or turn off the accelerator unit by the user when needed is my greatest biff against K-1 II.

I don't look at reviews, I look at what I experience. I shot the K1 for close to two years. I wouldn't discount the half second faster focus. It opens shooting opportunities, allowing you to capture shots that you couldn't otherwise. I didn't bother shooting birds in flight with the K1 because the results were poor, and I get those shots now with the Mark II.

The K1 is amazing in low light. I would be constantly amazed by what I was getting at high isos, and was probing the limits in the different shooting situations. Noise isn't linear; it depends greatly on how the photo is exposed, the color and brightness of the subject. In some situations a high iso and high shutter speed will get better results than low shutter speed and low iso, other situations the opposite. So a review with a couple shots is meaningless to me. I want to see over a range of shooting situations and subjects where the limits are. I'm finding the Mark II has higher limits than the K1, with a dramatic falloff when the conditions don't fit. I'm already getting shots that I wouldn't have gotten with the K1. These are extreme conditions with low light. Oddly those conditions produce awful images as well. The boundaries have moved, and it is up to me to probe the limits. So far they are further than the K1.

I wouldn't diss the dynamic pixel shift unless you try it. I have processing software, it is free and works well. The function is surprisingly useful, again in extreme conditions. These shots could be taken by other means; a tripod with long exposure, a tripod and four shots stacked post. What I do typically is have my long lens on the body, with a tripod and gimbal sometimes, and a shorter lens in my pocket. The gimbal doesn't work well for short lenses, so if I see a shot I put the short lens on the body and take a dynamic pixel shift shot. I don't have to carry a ball head and change the tripod setup to take a landscape shot. I did that and found I didn't take the shots. It has widened shooting opportunities for me in practice, with quite good results.

The autofocus improvements were worth every penny. The other things are an unexpected bonus.

[tax]

The autofocus improvements were worth every penny. The other things are an unexpected bonus.

All right then, I will send one of my K-1s for an upgrade. At least I will have one original K-1 to fall back on if I do not like Mark II.

[clickclick]

All right then, I will send one of my K-1s for an upgrade.

I think with two it's a no-brainer - send it in. What will be interesting to hear in a few months is if you wish you had done both!

[Kingman]

To All...I bit the bullet and am going to II. I called Precision and they are indeed short supply of the upgrade parts due to the unanticipated overwhelming response and they said they would advise me when to send in my K1. I filled out the online form completely the other day with payment info and while I got an auto reply to send in the unit with the shipping notice, I did not ship in my K1 and will wait.

I too am interested in "clickclick" future responses when he'll have the opportunity to test and compare the K1 and K1 II performances side by side.

[Dericali]

I don't look at reviews, I look at what I experience. I shot the K1 for close to two years. I wouldn't discount the half second faster focus. It opens shooting opportunities, allowing you to capture shots that you couldn't otherwise. I didn't bother shooting birds in flight with the K1 because the results were poor, and I get those shots now with the Mark II.

The autofocus improvements were worth every penny. The other things are an unexpected bonus.

Can you say whether these AF improvements are across the board, or mainly on certain lenses?

The PF review gave the impression that the main speed advantage is on the older screw drive lenses. Unfortunately they didn't test with any modern glass.

Does it have a measurable improvement on newer lenses, such as the DFA 24-70, 50mm, or 70-200?

[bdery]

You guys are killing me. I was all set not to upgrade and just be happy with my K-1, and save my money for my LBA. But after reading the comments above... I'm back to thinking about upgrading the body....

You should

1. "K-1 II's battery life has decreased slightly (from 760 to 670 frames) due to the incorporation of the image accelerator noise reduction chip." 90 shots less? I don't like this!

In practice so many variables influence this that I wouldn't worry about it.

2. "K-1 and K-1 II are almost identical regarding dynamic range, especially at lower ISO values." and "accelerator unit is meant to improve noise handling, not dynamic range." No dice for Mark II in here.

The K-1 is so good to begin with, I wouldn't have expected revolutions there.

3. AF-S wise "K-1 II is ahead of the K-1 with [some] screw-drive lens." and "Improvements average around 0.5 seconds when using the viewfinder." Only 0.5 sec? Who cares!

Sometimes that's a 50% improvement. A half-second is an eternity for some subjects.

4. "Differences . . . are less dramatic with [some] SDM lens." In one case, "Using the viewfinder, the K-1 II leads by a half-second for very low light levels, but the two cameras are almost identical as soon as EV values reach 1.25, a low level in itself." In another case "Using the viewfinder, gains are less than 0.2 seconds on the tested range, often less." Your index finger reaction time when you take a picture is much slower than that!

Depends on the lens and shooting scenario. The takeaway is taht the MK2 is always better, sometimes more sometimes less, but better.

5. AF-C Forward Movement "K-1 II performed marginally better." "The gain is around 5% more "good" images." I wonder, can you really perceive this 5% gain in practice?
6. AF-C Backward Movement "K-1 II offers visible improvements" when "K-1 did slightly better, with "good" results higher than 70% for the first time." I cannot remember when last time I was shooting something which was moving away from me to take advantage of this AF-C improvement.

The takeaway is that the improvements are consistent in a variety of scenarios.

8. Day Time. Colors In-camera JPEGs "At ISO 102400 and higher, the original K-1 does seem to preserve details a bit better, at the cost of higher noise." "The two last ISO steps [409600 and 819200] are all but unusable on the K-1 II." "The K-1 II is able to preserve details better than the K-1 when using in-camera JPEGs at the ISO values that will realistically be used by users." "The gains are small, but visible." but "at lower ISO value (ISO 6400 or below) differences are all but impossible to spot." I personally don't care, I do not shoot JPEGs anyway.

Fair enough. Many people do.

11. Night Time. In-camera JPEGs "The two cameras are indistinguishable below ISO 6400." and "at ISO 204800, the K-1 appears to preserve colors better than the newer model in low light." It is a pleasant surprise to me!

Who really shoots at ISO 204800 anyway? The two cameras are similar below 6400, the MK2 is better until about 102400, then it's not as clear-cut.

The MK2 is an all-around improvement. Not an all-around revolution. That would have been too much to expect using the same sensor and body. People who have done the upgrade are all happy with it.

[tax]

I think with two it's a no-brainer - send it in. What will be interesting to hear in a few months is if you wish you had done both!

Will see. I used two K-1s side by side to create stereo photography images for one of my projects. The project is over and I can sacrifice one camera for the upgrade. I will keep your posted when I have a chance to compare them after the upgrade.

[Kingman]

While I still have more FA lenses than DFA lenses, I am under the impression the increased speed is significantly more with the FA lenses since the DFA lenses since the DFA lenses are already fast. Nevertheless, reports say the DFA are also will be faster in focusing.

[zapp]

K1ii feels faster, is more responsive and I assume firmware updates can make even more difference compared to original K1. AF tracking feels better and snappier. Can I meaure the advantage? No.

With the upgrade you get a complete camera check, sensor cleaning, ... For a top of the line camera, this upgrade should be a no brainer. I admit that first reports basically say, the upgrade is not needed, but overall I am happy, I did it - I may get a second K1ii at some point for back up and don't want to run around with K1 and K1ii as there will always be small firmware differences. This will be the best Pentax can offer within the next 2 years or so for FF besides more lenses.

[wanderer2]

I don't look at reviews, I look at what I experience. I shot the K1 for close to two years. I wouldn't discount the half second faster focus. It opens shooting opportunities, allowing you to capture shots that you couldn't otherwise. I didn't bother shooting birds in flight with the K1 because the results were poor, and I get those shots now with the Mark II.

The K1 is amazing in low light. I would be constantly amazed by what I was getting at high isos, and was probing the limits in the different shooting situations. Noise isn't linear; it depends greatly on how the photo is exposed, the color and brightness of the subject. In some situations a high iso and high shutter speed will get better results than low shutter speed and low iso, other situations the opposite. So a review with a couple shots is meaningless to me. I want to see over a range of shooting situations and subjects where the limits are. I'm finding the Mark II has higher limits than the K1, with a dramatic falloff when the conditions don't fit. I'm already getting shots that I wouldn't have gotten with the K1. These are extreme conditions with low light. Oddly those conditions produce awful images as well. The boundaries have moved, and it is up to me to probe the limits. So far they are further than the K1.

I wouldn't diss the dynamic pixel shift unless you try it. I have processing software, it is free and works well. The function is surprisingly useful, again in extreme conditions. These shots could be taken by other means; a tripod with long exposure, a tripod and four shots stacked post. What I do typically is have my long lens on the body, with a tripod and gimbal sometimes, and a shorter lens in my pocket. The gimbal doesn't work well for short lenses, so if I see a shot I put the short lens on the body and take a dynamic pixel shift shot. I don't have to carry a ball head and change the tripod setup to take a landscape shot. I did that and found I didn't take the shots. It has widened shooting opportunities for me in practice, with quite good results.

The autofocus improvements were worth every penny. The other things are an unexpected bonus.

<<I wouldn't diss the dynamic pixel shift unless you try it. I have processing software, it is free and works well.>>

What processing software are you using? For my use dynamic pixel shift is the only feature of the upgrade that is appealing but I had decided not to do the upgrade because my understanding is that there is no software to process the DPS Raw files. I would be interested in any info on this. Thanks.