DPReview High ISO Noise D850 vs K-1

ShaunW · 10-04-2017, 02:29 PM

DPReview just recently added the D850 to their high ISO noise comparison. To me the D850 performs noticebly better than the K-1 in JPEG, however in RAW the performance appears nearly identical. What do you think?

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

Attached Images

Ikarus · 10-04-2017, 03:10 PM

To me, the D850 is visibly sharper than the K-1 in low ISO for raw images. I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort. The price to pay for the increase in sharpness is visible in the lithography scene on the left that the D850 turns into a moire and CA feast of epic proportions at ISO100.

**geomez** · 10-04-2017, 03:14 PM

D850 looks sharper to me in RAW

Rupert · 10-04-2017, 03:14 PM - **1 Like**

Looks like the K1 holds up pretty well....in particular in RAW. I have never considered my K1 as a low light noise free wonder....mainly because it isn't.

I don't find it much, if any, more efficient in low light and noise performance than my previous K5IIs. However, the K5IIs would not focus in low light...just wouldn't. The K1 has no problem focusing in low light....which is a huge difference.

I think all cameras do much better in good light.....and most nowadays do a reasonable job in poor light. Improvements continue...who can guess what the future holds!

Regards!

**geomez** · 10-04-2017, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Ikarus

I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort.

Why do you think that?

ShaunW · 10-04-2017, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Ikarus

To me, the D850 is visibly sharper than the K-1 in low ISO for raw images. I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort. The price to pay for the increase in sharpness is visible in the lithography scene on the left that the D850 turns into a moire and CA feast of epic proportions at ISO100.

The sharpness only appears slightly better under ISO 400, after 400 it isn't as apparent. The K-1 does have the pixel-shift mode, which, if the subject is still, looks sharper than the D850.

MadMathMind · 10-04-2017, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Ikarus

I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort.

Or the lens they used on the Nikon is just better. They used the FA77 on the K-1 and Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 prime on the D850.

Last edited by MadMathMind; 10-04-2017 at 03:43 PM.

rodaballo · 10-04-2017, 03:35 PM - **2 Likes**

In my opinion, sharpness should not be particularly regarded in these kind of comparative sets, as this is a parameter mainly lens induced. Instead, the diverse noise response and ISO should be taken into account.

**GUB** · 10-04-2017, 03:51 PM

I don't see any sharpness difference @ Iso 100. The nikon just looks more contrasty and blown out from either not being at its base Iso or sharpness set higher (or cooking its raw) . The colour setting is higher too.

**Digitalis** · 10-04-2017, 04:19 PM - **3 Likes**

I suppose this thread was inevitable.

Of course the D850 looks better in Jpeg, that is where the in camera processing runs loose. In-camera processing has never been a strong point with pentax.

In Raw format, both cameras look basically the same. There may be some slight differences in resolution, but unless the D850 had twice the megapixels of the K-1 there isn't going to be much of a visible difference in real world applications.

**monochrome** · 10-04-2017, 04:26 PM - **1 Like**

@MadMathMind Frankly, I wouldn’t complain about DPR using the FA77. I’ve seen tests where they used the M50/2.

Ikarus · 10-04-2017, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by geomez

Why do you think that?

Which part? The D850 has no AA filter, and it shows in the lithography part of the image. Whether or not the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, they don't seem to say, which is a bit odd, because they do provide the pixel shift setting as an alternative option for the K-1. I do suspect it was on, though, because the resolution of the D850 is much better and the moire much worse than the difference in pixel density between the sensors would explain.

I don't understand how folks can say that the resolution is similar between the two. If you select ISO 100, raw, image size 'full', and the rear wall in the scene of the lithography image, you see a very fine, well-defined square pattern with lots of colorful moire in the D850 image, whereas in the K-1 rendering it's all a wash but without the CA artifacts. That said, I agree that lens differences or subtle focusing errors could be the cause as well.

btnapa · 10-04-2017, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Rupert

I don't find it much, if any, more efficient in low light and noise performance than my previous K5IIs. However, the K5IIs would not focus in low light...just wouldn't. The K1 has no problem focusing in low light....which is a huge difference

I would agree with you on the focus in the dark advantage of the K1. However, a recent shoot with my K5IIs showed me that the K1 is far better in high ISOs (3,200 and beyond). I had the K5IIS a few years ago and let it go. I recently acquired a used one to be a back for my K1 in an upcoming wedding shoot. They are two different animals. After shooting with K1 for a year, K5IIs save times and lack of focus points and speed of focus in low light are just painful! I wish I had picked up a K3 which does not have any of the K5IIs problems. However, in good light K5IIs really shines.

On the 850 vs. K1 low to high ISO performance, I see differences but they are not massive, making K1 the better value for now. I see people pointing to the Nikon lens being better and the difference maker. That may be true but let's not knock a marvel of lens engineering, the FA77.

I was thinking of jumping ship if the 850 was markedly better as I do lots of landscapes. After looking at the studio samples, K1 with pixel shift is in the company of the big boys, way beyond 850 or any of the current high MP Sony or Canons.

biz-engineer · 10-04-2017, 11:26 PM - **1 Like**

I don't see much difference. A little more sharpness (not obvious) and moire patterns / false colors with the D850, versus K1 low noise and free of color artifacts. Anyway, the more I shoot with K1, the more I realize it's a beast of a camera when used with good lenses.

JohnX · 10-05-2017, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Ikarus

Which part? The D850 has no AA filter, and it shows in the lithography part of the image. Whether or not the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, they don't seem to say, which is a bit odd, because they do provide the pixel shift setting as an alternative option for the K-1. I do suspect it was on, though, because the resolution of the D850 is much better and the moire much worse than the difference in pixel density between the sensors would explain.

I don't understand how folks can say that the resolution is similar between the two. If you select ISO 100, raw, image size 'full', and the rear wall in the scene of the lithography image, you see a very fine, well-defined square pattern with lots of colorful moire in the D850 image, whereas in the K-1 rendering it's all a wash but without the CA artifacts. That said, I agree that lens differences or subtle focusing errors could be the cause as well.

Personally I couldn't care less whether one camera is better than the other, but am bothered about how the for/against arguments are made, so in this instance surely the size of the files indicates this is not an apples vs. apples comparison? The K1 files appear to be half the size of those from the D850.

10-04-2017, 02:29 PM	#1
ShaunW Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 60	DPReview High ISO Noise D850 vs K-1 DPReview just recently added the D850 to their high ISO noise comparison. To me the D850 performs noticebly better than the K-1 in JPEG, however in RAW the performance appears nearly identical. What do you think? Image comparison: Digital Photography Review Attached Images

10-04-2017, 06:12 PM	#12
Ikarus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: California Photos: Albums Posts: 484	Originally posted by geomez Why do you think that? Which part? The D850 has no AA filter, and it shows in the lithography part of the image. Whether or not the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, they don't seem to say, which is a bit odd, because they do provide the pixel shift setting as an alternative option for the K-1. I do suspect it was on, though, because the resolution of the D850 is much better and the moire much worse than the difference in pixel density between the sensors would explain. I don't understand how folks can say that the resolution is similar between the two. If you select ISO 100, raw, image size 'full', and the rear wall in the scene of the lithography image, you see a very fine, well-defined square pattern with lots of colorful moire in the D850 image, whereas in the K-1 rendering it's all a wash but without the CA artifacts. That said, I agree that lens differences or subtle focusing errors could be the cause as well. Attached Images Last edited by Ikarus; 10-04-2017 at 06:24 PM.

10-04-2017, 11:26 PM - 1 Like	#14
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,232	I don't see much difference. A little more sharpness (not obvious) and moire patterns / false colors with the D850, versus K1 low noise and free of color artifacts. Anyway, the more I shoot with K1, the more I realize it's a beast of a camera when used with good lenses. Last edited by biz-engineer; 10-04-2017 at 11:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs.......	Steelski	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	06-28-2017 04:59 PM
NIKON D810 out of production - D850 coming?	D1N0	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	74	02-21-2017 04:23 AM
Nikon D850	Bunch	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	01-11-2016 02:25 PM
K-5 Low light/ High ISO dpreview vs dxo mark conflict	vodanh1982	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	10-07-2011 02:52 AM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO	supa007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	05-10-2010 04:24 PM

10-04-2017, 03:10 PM	#2
Ikarus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: California Photos: Albums Posts: 484	To me, the D850 is visibly sharper than the K-1 in low ISO for raw images. I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort. The price to pay for the increase in sharpness is visible in the lithography scene on the left that the D850 turns into a moire and CA feast of epic proportions at ISO100.

10-04-2017, 03:14 PM	#3
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	D850 looks sharper to me in RAW

10-04-2017, 03:14 PM - 1 Like	#4
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Looks like the K1 holds up pretty well....in particular in RAW. I have never considered my K1 as a low light noise free wonder....mainly because it isn't. I don't find it much, if any, more efficient in low light and noise performance than my previous K5IIs. However, the K5IIs would not focus in low light...just wouldn't. The K1 has no problem focusing in low light....which is a huge difference. I think all cameras do much better in good light.....and most nowadays do a reasonable job in poor light. Improvements continue...who can guess what the future holds! Regards!

10-04-2017, 03:16 PM	#5
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	Originally posted by Ikarus I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort. Why do you think that?

10-04-2017, 03:18 PM	#6
ShaunW Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 60 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ikarus To me, the D850 is visibly sharper than the K-1 in low ISO for raw images. I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort. The price to pay for the increase in sharpness is visible in the lithography scene on the left that the D850 turns into a moire and CA feast of epic proportions at ISO100. The sharpness only appears slightly better under ISO 400, after 400 it isn't as apparent. The K-1 does have the pixel-shift mode, which, if the subject is still, looks sharper than the D850.

10-04-2017, 03:28 PM	#7
MadMathMind Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,717	Originally posted by Ikarus I suspect this is because the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, whereas the D850 has nothing of the sort. Or the lens they used on the Nikon is just better. They used the FA77 on the K-1 and Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 prime on the D850. Last edited by MadMathMind; 10-04-2017 at 03:43 PM.

10-04-2017, 03:35 PM - 2 Likes	#8
rodaballo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 158	In my opinion, sharpness should not be particularly regarded in these kind of comparative sets, as this is a parameter mainly lens induced. Instead, the diverse noise response and ISO should be taken into account.

10-04-2017, 03:51 PM	#9
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	I don't see any sharpness difference @ Iso 100. The nikon just looks more contrasty and blown out from either not being at its base Iso or sharpness set higher (or cooking its raw) . The colour setting is higher too.

10-04-2017, 04:19 PM - 3 Likes	#10
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	I suppose this thread was inevitable. Of course the D850 looks better in Jpeg, that is where the in camera processing runs loose. In-camera processing has never been a strong point with pentax. In Raw format, both cameras look basically the same. There may be some slight differences in resolution, but unless the D850 had twice the megapixels of the K-1 there isn't going to be much of a visible difference in real world applications.

10-04-2017, 04:26 PM - 1 Like	#11
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	@MadMathMind Frankly, I wouldn’t complain about DPR using the FA77. I’ve seen tests where they used the M50/2.

10-04-2017, 06:49 PM	#13
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,616	Originally posted by Rupert I don't find it much, if any, more efficient in low light and noise performance than my previous K5IIs. However, the K5IIs would not focus in low light...just wouldn't. The K1 has no problem focusing in low light....which is a huge difference I would agree with you on the focus in the dark advantage of the K1. However, a recent shoot with my K5IIs showed me that the K1 is far better in high ISOs (3,200 and beyond). I had the K5IIS a few years ago and let it go. I recently acquired a used one to be a back for my K1 in an upcoming wedding shoot. They are two different animals. After shooting with K1 for a year, K5IIs save times and lack of focus points and speed of focus in low light are just painful! I wish I had picked up a K3 which does not have any of the K5IIs problems. However, in good light K5IIs really shines. On the 850 vs. K1 low to high ISO performance, I see differences but they are not massive, making K1 the better value for now. I see people pointing to the Nikon lens being better and the difference maker. That may be true but let's not knock a marvel of lens engineering, the FA77. I was thinking of jumping ship if the 850 was markedly better as I do lots of landscapes. After looking at the studio samples, K1 with pixel shift is in the company of the big boys, way beyond 850 or any of the current high MP Sony or Canons.

10-05-2017, 12:48 AM	#15
JohnX Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London Posts: 1,116	Originally posted by Ikarus Which part? The D850 has no AA filter, and it shows in the lithography part of the image. Whether or not the K-1 had the AA simulator enabled, they don't seem to say, which is a bit odd, because they do provide the pixel shift setting as an alternative option for the K-1. I do suspect it was on, though, because the resolution of the D850 is much better and the moire much worse than the difference in pixel density between the sensors would explain. I don't understand how folks can say that the resolution is similar between the two. If you select ISO 100, raw, image size 'full', and the rear wall in the scene of the lithography image, you see a very fine, well-defined square pattern with lots of colorful moire in the D850 image, whereas in the K-1 rendering it's all a wash but without the CA artifacts. That said, I agree that lens differences or subtle focusing errors could be the cause as well. Personally I couldn't care less whether one camera is better than the other, but am bothered about how the for/against arguments are made, so in this instance surely the size of the files indicates this is not an apples vs. apples comparison? The K1 files appear to be half the size of those from the D850.