[Kingman]

Any one have any admissions that the upgrade was simply not worth doing and possibly not worth the money? I am really on the fence of doing the upgrade. Do people really see and really notice a significantly faster focusing performance with DFA and FA lenses? I gotta make up my mind up soon. Help! I shoot mostly landscapes but an occasional wedding. Seems the upgrade may help for faster focusing in weddings. HELP!
,
Also I have an assignment on Sept 29th, if I fill out the web form and send the camera in on October 1, am I OK?

Regards,


"Kingman"

[Pentax Syntax]

Upgrade is worth it for FA * lenses I use for weddings. I upgraded my K-1 and now have the equivalent of two K-1iis to use with the *FA 28-70 2.8 and 80-200 FA*. AF is faster on my D-FA 15-30 also but that improvement is marginal. Everything seems snappier after upgrade but the K-1 is no slouch. The ISO improvement is marginal but I love the dynamic pixel shift. Hope this is a help. The forum review pretty much nailed it IMHO.

[derekkite]

I have the DFA 150-450, and it is remarkably better. I'm finding to my chagrin that my poor results can't be blamed on the camera body anymore. I don't have any of the newer shorter zooms or primes. The 43 Limited is fine, it focuses reliably.

The Dynamic pixel shift is also useful. I've been using it in low light conditions to get a cleaner high iso low noise shot. If you have a tripod the Pixel Shift works quite well, and the time to process for the dynamic mode is a bit of a nuisance, but it is one of these features that I use because it is available and works handheld. I'm moving into low light conditions in the fall and winter and suspect I will use it often.

On the K1 I had set the iso limit from 100-6400. The Mark II is 100-12800, and I'm going to notch it up a couple stops. I'm getting remarkably clean shots at 12800 in some conditions, and I use the high limit as an indicator rather than an operating limit.

This is 1/250, f6.3 iso 12800. Very minor and easy noise cleanup on the background, a bit of chroma noise. This was dynamic pixel shift.

[clickclick]

Also I have an assignment on Sept 29th, if I fill out the web form and send the camera in on October 1, am I OK?

Yes, and in fact, Precision has on their page to hold on to the camera until they contact you to send it in. I called and talked to them last week about the upgrade. I have since filled in the form, but I still have my K-1 in hand. They said as long as the web form is complete and submitted, you are all set. You get a confirmation email back from them with a link to a receipt in .pdf format, so you will have confirmation of completing the submission process.

[C_Jones]

The K-1 II camera is extraordinary in providing detail and color in images, and the AF is instantaneous. I ran out of image attachment upload space, so I uploaded a crop of an image to my Pentax Forums gallery. A shortcut to the image crop that I took a couple of days ago using my Pentax K-1 II and Pentax 70-200 is below. I love my Pentax K-1 II and the Pentax 70-200.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/52508/1_IMGP4488_0921_Crop.jpg

Below is a shortcut to the original image (uncropped).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/52508/1_IMGP4488_0921_Orig.JPG


Please note: Neither image has been edited except for providing the crop.

[david94903]

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....

[Tbone51]

Autofocus is better with 150-450 lens. I can now expect to capture BIF, whereas previously it was by chance. The improved autofocus makes up for the reduced burst speed of the K3. The Mark II camera with the 28-105 lens captured amazing images on a recent trip. Heavier than the K3, but worth it.

[Kingman]

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....

Sorry Dave, Looks like I've got to bite the bullet too!

---------- Post added 09-23-18 at 07:22 PM ----------

Sorry Dave, Looks like I've got to bite the bullet too!

Thanks all for the quick responses to my to K1 or not to K1 II...especially about filling out the forms in advance. Now I can do my shoot on this Saturday and not worry about the deadline. Today I did a test with my K1 and FA*85/1.4 and FA77/1.8 to try and remember their focus times and overall feel...We'll see if I can remember the difference when the my K1 come back as a K1 II.

[clickclick]

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....

Go on! Do it do it do it!!!!

(said by someone looking for comfort in numbers )

[Sandy Hancock]

I took some shots (over 500 actually) during the Yurrebilla 56km ultra-marathon yesterday. I was impressed with the ability of the K-1 Mark II to hit focus consistently on people running towards me. I took short bursts of two to three shots most times, but most of the discards were due to composition rather than focus errors.

THIS ALBUM has a few of the keepers for those who want evidence.

[MoiVous]

I've had my K1-ii back for just over a week and feel that overall the AF is faster and more decisive.
My style is mainly street work these days, and do a bit of post processing in Nik Silver Efex, but pixel peeping at the images I find they are cleaner and I need to adjust luminance/noise far less.

Detail is no worse than the K1 in my opinion.

I tried out the dynamic pixel shift when I got it back - and had a look at some comparison images at ISO 3200 and 25600 (had to do that in Raw Therapee - LR CC still has no support!) which were very impressive.
I shoot a lot of images up to ISO 20000 so I'll be doing more testing - but so far all good.

If you want to see what I've done so far - in B&W and Nik Silver Efex -
here are a few images on Flickr

In my opinion its worth the upgrade

Cheers

[Not a Number]

PF's new in-depth review may help you decide. If the parts are backordered you can always send in the paperwork now but decline later before sending in the camera.

Pentax K-1 Mark II vs K-1 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[Dericali]

I'm in the same situation, but right now for me it seems that the price is a bit steep just to get slightly better autofocus.

[tax]

PF's new in-depth review may help you decide.

Thank you Not a Number, this review was very helpful.
While I really appreciate this unique Mark II upgrade opportunity presented by Ricoh, I believe that not everyone would benefit from it.
Evaluating my own use cases for K-1, I came with the following either negative or not so important list of K-1 II improvements, addressed by the review, which would not warrant upgrading my plain K-1 to Mark II specs:
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!
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.
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!
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!
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.
7. AF-C Lateral Movement "there is no significant difference between the two cameras." and "the differences are so small as to be irrelevant." Most of my picture shootings involve lateral movement. So, no dice for Mark II in here too.
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.
9. Day Time. Processed RAW "Neither camera pulls ahead strongly" and " clarity seems higher with the K-1, which can be interpreted as being sharper." and "Using RAW files, the color differences . . . all but disappear." This is very important to me, because I shoot RAW only!
10. "K-1 II . . . does produce images that appear to have a lower clarity setting." "The development software and its settings have a significant impact." Which is always true!
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!
12. Night Time. Processed RAW "differences are subtle." Again, no dice for Mark II.
13. Dynamic Pixel Shift. "Currently, no PC software can process RAW Dynamic PS files automatically." Well, I would not use it anyway.

And this review
Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com
speaks about my major concern, the accelerator unit:
"The Image Accelerator clearly has an effect on RAW files. At the same time, though, fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail." and "in JPEG mode the K-1 II is a clearer winner, with hardly any pixel-level noise . . . However, . . . the K-1 does render fine details more clearly."
I see RAW DNG as an "original image negative" which can be stored indefinitely and post processed every time when new and better post processing programs and algorithms become available. Once you modify RAW file itself, there is no way back. Means that you'll be stuck forever with whatever noise reduction algorithm was directly applied to the file. Had Ricoh preserved an option to turn the accelerator unit off when it is not needed, then it would be a different ball game. But for now, I personally see no benefits in shelling out almost a third of a new K-1 II camera price for such a marginal and maybe detrimental for some of its uses upgrade.
Those who are raving about how their upgraded K-1 became better, faster and more intelligent are forgetting about the "must have" effect. And once you spent $550 you will perceive that everything became faster and better. Psychologically, very few people would admit that what they got in return isn't worth the money they spent. As for K-1 II AF improvement, I would dare you to conduct an experiment. Take one K-1 and K-1 II. Put some stickers over their K-1 and K-1II logos, so you don't know which is which. Then take a number of pictures with both cameras side by side, as you ordinary would, with the same set of lenses and using OVF. Then try to tell the difference between performances of their AF-S and AF-C. If this test done blindly, under normal circumstances, you won't be able to tell one camera from another.

[derekkite]

Thank you Not a Number, this review was very helpful.
While I really appreciate this unique Mark II upgrade opportunity presented by Ricoh, I believe that not everyone would benefit from it.
Evaluating my own use cases for K-1, I came with the following either negative or not so important list of K-1 II improvements, addressed by the review, which would not warrant upgrading my plain K-1 to Mark II specs:
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!
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.
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!
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!
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.
7. AF-C Lateral Movement "there is no significant difference between the two cameras." and "the differences are so small as to be irrelevant." Most of my picture shootings involve lateral movement. So, no dice for Mark II in here too.
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.
9. Day Time. Processed RAW "Neither camera pulls ahead strongly" and " clarity seems higher with the K-1, which can be interpreted as being sharper." and "Using RAW files, the color differences . . . all but disappear." This is very important to me, because I shoot RAW only!
10. "K-1 II . . . does produce images that appear to have a lower clarity setting." "The development software and its settings have a significant impact." Which is always true!
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!
12. Night Time. Processed RAW "differences are subtle." Again, no dice for Mark II.
13. Dynamic Pixel Shift. "Currently, no PC software can process RAW Dynamic PS files automatically." Well, I would not use it anyway.

And this review
Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com
speaks about my major concern, the accelerator unit:
"The Image Accelerator clearly has an effect on RAW files. At the same time, though, fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail." and "in JPEG mode the K-1 II is a clearer winner, with hardly any pixel-level noise . . . However, . . . the K-1 does render fine details more clearly."
I see RAW DNG as an "original image negative" which can be stored indefinitely and post processed every time when new and better post processing programs and algorithms become available. Once you modify RAW file itself, there is no way back. Means that you'll be stuck forever with whatever noise reduction algorithm was directly applied to the file. Had Ricoh preserved an option to turn the accelerator unit off when it is not needed, then it would be a different ball game. But for now, I personally see no benefits in shelling out almost a third of a new K-1 II camera price for such a marginal and maybe detrimental for some of its uses upgrade.
Those who are raving about how their upgraded K-1 became better, faster and more intelligent are forgetting about the "must have" effect. And once you spent $550 you will perceive that everything became faster and better. Psychologically, very few people would admit that what they got in return isn't worth the money they spent. As for K-1 II AF improvement, I would dare you to conduct an experiment. Take one K-1 and K-1 II. Put some stickers over their K-1 and K-1II logos, so you don't know which is which. Then take a number of pictures with both cameras side by side, as you ordinary would, with the same set of lenses and using OVF. Then try to tell the difference between performances of their AF-S and AF-C. If this test done blindly, under normal circumstances, you won't be able to tell one camera from another.

I disagree with the last comment. Put a 150-450 on it and shoot moving targets. The difference is substantial.

I'm getting a stop better noise performance with the Mark II.

The dynamic pixel shift is very handy. Again in low light conditions you can get a clean shot which otherwise would require tripod and long exposure.

The K1 is a remarkably capable body. Some people aren't going to be pushing the limits of it's capabilities, and an upgrade wouldn't give them anything they need. But there are real improvements.