[clackers]

I am mainly interested in the cameras abilities to create as clean a raw as possible and not its ability to clean up its mess.

The RAW files won't be better, PPPPPP42. Essentially, the K-5 uses a crop of the K-1's sensor so its noise performance is almost identical.

You can check this on the 'Screen' tab of the DxO results rather than the predictions of the 'Print' tab.

[cali92rs]

Make a 20×30 print using the K-1 then make a 20×30 print using the K-5. The K-1 print WILL look better. If you are only interested in looking at a monitor zoomed at 100%, then both will appear the same.
But if you are interested in actually making a print, the K-1 is the way to go.

[Gimbal]

If it is only for astrophotography the money would probably be better spent on a tracking mount and thus get longer exposures at lower ISO.

[normhead]

Make a 20×30 print using the K-1 then make a 20×30 print using the K-5. The K-1 print WILL look better. If you are only interested in looking at a monitor zoomed at 100%, then both will appear the same.
But if you are interested in actually making a print, the K-1 is the way to go.

Especially if you end up cropping..... but I would actually like to see someone test that theory. I'd love to have the ability to do 5 20x30 prints made with a K-5 and and 5 done with a K-1 , then set up somewhere in a mall and actually poll people to see which image they prefer. While I know common wisdom is that people would prefer the K-1 image, I have no actual evidence to suggest that would be true. At smaller sizes teachers with access to test subjects and printers, have noted folks without being told which is which, can't tell the difference.

There are a couple of assumptions being made, one being that from a normal viewing difference people can tell the difference. The second being the finer detailed image will be judged as the preferred image, even if they can see a difference.

There is, as far as I know, no research done on the the relationship between print resolution and how much people appreciate the print. IN fact for some images, using advanced enlarging algorithms I would guess even 50 DPI images could be judged superior to 300 DPI images, where the 300 DPI images appear messy or cluttered.

These kinds of generalizations make me uneasy, but, I'm not going to pay a lot of money or waste a lot of time proving it one way or the other. I do find the pronouncements of those who also haven't done some type of research like this to be suspect. They actually don't know any more about this than I do.

My suspicion is that as in so many things, if a person knows one image is higher res than another the person will find a way to justify that belief, because of their belief that higher res is better, even if they are given bad information where the images are reversed or are the same. There are countless descriptions of this type of belief falling apart after rigorous testing. For myself, all I now is images look better on my 27 inch 2758x 1660 monitor than on my wife 21.5 inch 3600 x 2300 (approximation) monitor. Viewing images at higher res doesn't necessarily make them look better. And she sometimes brings her images to my computer for her final check, which she prefers to do at lower resolution. I see no reason that shouldn't be true for some (if not all) prints as well. I suspect there is an optimum resolution for viewing prints, and like everything else, you can go over it or under it. I doubt it's simply a case of more res is always better.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-02-2017 at 05:42 AM.

[DeadJohn]

My experience upgrading from K5 to K1 has been good. Dynamic range is better than I expected. Colors look improved, especially for sunset and sunrise

Some of my perceived improvements could be due to workflow tweaks. I've always used DNG and LR, but I spent more time getting a good default preset for my K1.

Weather hasn't allowed me to do much astrophotography with the K1. Initial results are promising.

[normhead]

My experience upgrading from K5 to K1 has been good. Dynamic range is better than I expected. Colors look improved, especially for sunset and sunrise

Some of my perceived improvements could be due to workflow tweaks. I've always used DNG and LR, but I spent more time getting a good default preset for my K1.

Weather hasn't allowed me to do much astrophotography with the K1. Initial results are promising.

This spring has been completely depressing. I've been out on almost every opportunity and I'm taking pictures maybe 2 times a week. I'm sure the K-1 will continue to impress.

[ekip]

There is exif info with the imaging-resource.com images. The KP was taken with 70mm f/8 1/125. The K70 was 70mm f/8 1/250. That's a whole stop of light less - hardly a fair comparison.

The dxomark low light ISO scores cannot be raw sensor efficiency scores as the full frames always get much higher scores. They probably test FF with a longer lens with the same f ratio (ie, larger aperture) vs crop bodies. A crop-body 35mm @ f/8 vs FF 50mm @ f/8 gets you the the same field of view but gives a light gathering advantage to the FF, it nothing to do with the sensor efficiency.

[normhead]

There is exif info with the imaging-resource.com images. The KP was taken with 70mm f/8 1/125. The K70 was 70mm f/8 1/250. That's a whole stop of light less - hardly a fair comparison.

That is pretty much irrelevant. That is a measure of available light as much as anything else. If the studio added or subtracted lights or in some other way altered the amount of light in the studio, then the exposure would be the same. Unless you know that the light levels were the same you can't say one had more exposure than the other. As well, you could be seeing a difference in the metering of the two cameras, again a valid cross camera comparison.

My usual rule of thumb, go with a test until a better test comes along. Speculation about the levels of available light don't really count as a "test", and aren't even in the conversation. I'm assuming the test was done in AV mode with the speed being changed with the metering. Metering issue? Change of lighting? both are possible. But, still a fair test as far as it goes.