[BigMackCam]

I don't have the 1.4, but I love this combo.

My head knows that it matters naught what a combo looks like... but my heart says that's a really fine-looking setup. One that would make me want to shoot

[SSGGeezer]

Here is a shot with the DA 50 1.8 "Plastic Fantastic," at ISO 12800 1/200s F6.3. I forced it to high ISO as a test and shooting an object I have shot with my FA 77 1.8 multiple times when testing my cameras.

[rod_grant]

Get used to the new position of the back AF button

Ted, I'm trying, and getting a bit better.
Our hands must be different; I thought K5 was perfect.

[pres589]

Here is a shot with the DA 50 1.8 "Plastic Fantastic," at ISO 12800 1/200s F6.3. I forced it to high ISO as a test and shooting an object I have shot with my FA 77 1.8 multiple times when testing my cameras.

There any noise reduction going on? Out of camera jpeg? I know the KP is supposed to be amazing at low-light/high-ISO function, this is really impressive, and I want to make sure I'm not getting my hopes up.

[SSGGeezer]

There any noise reduction going on? Out of camera jpeg? I know the KP is supposed to be amazing at low-light/high-ISO function, this is really impressive, and I want to make sure I'm not getting my hopes up.

it is the standard DXO profile with a 200 degree light adjustment. There is pretty much no difference in the details between this and a SOOC version. Also very little to no difference in ISO 3200 up to 12.8K. This is under incandescent bulbs and indirect sunlight. I processed from RAW so in the first image High ISO NR does not matter.
here is one SOC a bit more heavily cropped so the quality reduction done upon upload doesn't affect it too much. For the SOOC High ISO NR is on the Low setting. I prefer working in RAW so I have more control, but pixel peeping there is little to differentiate the two versions of NR when the visible grain in the RAW image was less noticeable than the grain in most consumer ASA 400 film.

I am no expert but this camera just amazes me every time I look at a shot that worked as I hoped.

[pres589]

Nice!

[SSGGeezer]

And those chocolate covered espresso beans are amazing! Roasted Tanzanian Peaberry then to a local Chocolatier, and WOW!

[Rockbox]

please do such comparison, I'm very interested ! Because I'm also m43 parallel user, and want the KP , and want to know which suits you better... I was just ask in Facebook pentax group today the very same question

I'd love to get on with taking photos to compare the KP and the EM-1ii, but sadly I'm still suffering post-op problems and I can't get out and about. I think I'll try to set something up indoors and take some table top comparison shots as soon as possible.

[Elliot]

I see the last post was four days ago, and am wondering if you have made progress with a comparison of the KP to the E-M1.2. I see the DXO tests show the pretty good low-light performance of the Olympus, and wonder how the Pentax fares comparatively. I would be interested in any comments about the low-light performance as well as dynamic range differences between these two cameras.

[panonski]

I see the last post was four days ago, and am wondering if you have made progress with a comparison of the KP to the E-M1.2. I see the DXO tests show the pretty good low-light performance of the Olympus, and wonder how the Pentax fares comparatively. I would be interested in any comments about the low-light performance as well as dynamic range differences between these two cameras.

Yes, Oly Omd-M1 mark II, is better in high ISO values, but to be fair, it's not KP - because KP beats even previous K1 - which is full frame.

I'm not sayin Oly does not doing a good job - I can tell - from my Pen-Ep5 - m43 is capable system for concerts. Maybe even better then pentax.

It's not everything in High Iso muscles - and I must say here - Oly have more potential to be the all around tool for work

On the other hand - pentax have some other good sides, like the price, lenses possibilities, extremely good in proffesional work, with 24 mpix super quality - versus 20 from Oly, and obvious better in low light, and for bokeh with cheaper lens


But then again, in real work - Oly can take the lead, and perhaps - maybe KP can jeopardise that for the moment, or completely push off the Oly

[Elliot]

I have a Panasonic G85 with Panasonic Leica 100-400mm lens and in good light, it is superb. When light is not so good, the higher ISO leads to smearing in photos of birds at our feeder, for example. I cannot have a fast enough shutter speed without pushing the ISO too much. I thought the Olympus E-M1.2 -- with a 1300 low-light ISO rating from DxO that is twice as high as the Panasonic -- might solve that issue. The alternative is the KP, in which the larger sensor might allow more cropping from a telephoto with less reach, and if the low-light performance was better than the E-M1.

[panonski]

I have a Panasonic G85 with Panasonic Leica 100-400mm lens and in good light, it is superb. When light is not so good, the higher ISO leads to smearing in photos of birds at our feeder, for example. I cannot have a fast enough shutter speed without pushing the ISO too much. I thought the Olympus E-M1.2 -- with a 1300 low-light ISO rating from DxO that is twice as high as the Panasonic -- might solve that issue. The alternative is the KP, in which the larger sensor might allow more cropping from a telephoto with less reach, and if the low-light performance was better than the E-M1.

when you do some math,

you quickly realise, that there is not so much difference between apsc - and m43 sensors ( talking about most recent )

WHY?
Well, in APSC you must raise higher values for same result, because the body of APSC is heavier, image stabilisation is slower, and you must raise your shutter speed, but then again, that requires higher ISO values.

Let's say you taking a photos on concert, and with apperture with 5.6, 6.7, you may be good, but for sure results - I would recomend f 8.

Now,

let's do equal setting on m43 - you can take photos with f 4, and with f 5.6 you will be sharp as a knife.... That way you can take photos with higher shutter speed, to get things perfectly sharp.

And you still have the quite more space to get even better results, with lower shutter speeds, because image stabilisation is so damn good in Oly's bodies, that you may be good even at 1/15 - and motions , like hands on guitar, would have intersted motion blur, while the rest will be tack sharp.

I cannot allow myself to go that deep in low shutter speed with my K-3, because everything below 1/30 is just a spoiled shoot - most of the time, and specially in concert crowd...

---

so the math told you - m43 - is maybe ( or for sure ) more capable then APSC.

KP is still behind the posibilities, of the OLY, but it's pretty close...

[Rockbox]

when you do some math,

you quickly realise, that there is not so much difference between apsc - and m43 sensors ( talking about most recent )

WHY?
Well, in APSC you must raise higher values for same result, because the body of APSC is heavier, image stabilisation is slower, and you must raise your shutter speed, but then again, that requires higher ISO values.

Let's say you taking a photos on concert, and with apperture with 5.6, 6.7, you may be good, but for sure results - I would recomend f 8.

Now,

let's do equal setting on m43 - you can take photos with f 4, and with f 5.6 you will be sharp as a knife.... That way you can take photos with higher shutter speed, to get things perfectly sharp.

And you still have the quite more space to get even better results, with lower shutter speeds, because image stabilisation is so damn good in Oly's bodies, that you may be good even at 1/15 - and motions , like hands on guitar, would have intersted motion blur, while the rest will be tack sharp.

I cannot allow myself to go that deep in low shutter speed with my K-3, because everything below 1/30 is just a spoiled shoot - most of the time, and specially in concert crowd...

---

so the math told you - m43 - is maybe ( or for sure ) more capable then APSC.

KP is still behind the posibilities, of the OLY, but it's pretty close...

Frankly I think you are kidding yourself here with your 'mathematics'. There is a recognisable difference between the E-M1.2 and the KP in terms of noise, the KP is slightly better and particularly so at higher ISO over 3200. As to weight, my E-M1.2 with 12-100 f4 is significantly heavier than my KP with 18-135WR. Many people think a heavier system is easier to hold steady than a lighter one, not sure myself. The main benefit for the Olympus I have found so far in my (limited) comparison of my two systems is that the shake reduction of the E-M1.2 12-100 combo is significantly better than the KP 18-135. In real everyday shooting there really isn't much difference in terms of IQ that is truly significant and it's not really possible to show any difference convincingly by posting photos on a forum like this. Sadly as a very long time Pentax user (since 1981) I prefer the feel and handling of the E-M1.2 to the KP and I think the handling of the KP is inferior to my old K5. But of course that's just me, each to their own.

[Elliot]

I was surprised to find that the two lens combinations are within 27 grams of each other, and wonder if the Pentax combination is better balanced and so feels lighter with the heavier body than lens.
According to the web listings:
The Olympus E-M1 Mark II and 12-100mm lens is 1135 grams (574+561)
The Pentax KP and the 18-135mm lens is 1106 grams (703+405)

On the other hand, the camera plus lens costs are quite different, about $2,950 for the Olympus pair and $1,350 for the Pentax pair.

[mikesbike]

The SR has been significantly improved in the KP design over previous models. Its noise and quality at higher ISO performance has also been shown as far better than that of the K-3. There have been numerous discussions regarding the differences between 4/3rd and APS-C formats. The KP's design goal was to produce a more compact APS-C model with imaging capabilities being in line with or very close to those of the K-1 FF model, making it an ideal APS-C 2nd body to the K-1, or a choice for APS-C instead of going to a FF body. By all reports, it has been a success in this regard, which is remarkable.

I have found the in-camera JPEG results from the KP to be really exceptional. It has an excellent processing engine. Important: just be sure to implement "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image menu for both "Bright" and "Natural" categories (but NOT when having your camera set to the "green" exposure mode. "P" is ok). "Bright" is the default category setting for most situations. With the KP I have found results from the "Bright" setting to be better than with other Pentax models, with a more natural color palette (yet having"pop") and less blocked-up shadows. Then there are the control features for higher DR, and for shadow and highlight detail. I think the KP is great for its range of shooting choices that are capable of producing fine results.