[photoptimist]

Yet, cameras from different brands using the same sensor can have different characteristics, with most chips having customizable leads to produce different reproduction capabilities. So, ya bayer is bayer, but that doesn't mean there are differences between different implementations of Bayer, which is what seems to be implied by this statement. SO to summarize,

Bayer is Bayer, but each Bayer implementation is different. In my now work macro, shot on tripods using Pixel Shift, my guess is there are many times when Bayer is as good as Pixel Shifted images. It seems to be luck of the draw. Except for the part where when Pixel shift is best, it produces an image the Bayer extrapolation can't match, whereas when they are equal, pixel shift isn't worse than the Bayer image, it's just not better.

Before I purchased a camera that did Pixel Shift I thought the difference would be more. Bayer is actually pretty darn good.

Although brands do differ in implementations of the sensor, electronics, and software, the Bayer mess is pretty fundamental to the sensor pixel architecture and occurs BEFORE any electronics or software get their hands on the data. The "Bayer mess" that MJKoski spoke of arises on the optical side of how the sensor (fails) to capture light of all colors at all pixel locations.

Some cameras have built-in low-pass/anti-aliasing filters and their implementation won't have the "Bayer mess" that MJKoski spoke of. (And some Bayer mess issues can be solved by the K-1's antialiasing simulator).

Some lenses and imaging scenarios (wide-open softness, long-shutter blur, object motion, narrow-aperture diffraction, etc.) introduce enough softness in the image to not to have the "Bayer mess". (And these conditions benefit from turning off the K-1's antialiasing simulator).

Some photographers never take pictures of the kinds of details that can provoke the "Bayer mess". (And these conditions also benefit from turning off the K-1's antialiasing simulator).


You are entirely right about the PS-always-equals-or-exceeds-Bayer. In fact, even if the PS-merged image has unacceptable motion or lighting artifacts, the photographer still has the benefits of a choice of four RAW Bayer shots to choose from.

[mikesbike]

Looking at the video, which is a very good examination, and at many other sample images, in the real world under most circumstances, the KP holds up remarkably well. That was its design goal. Color palette is of course adjustable, and varies accordingly. It is also a matter of taste. In film use, one must switch to a different film to accomplish that.

The K-1 is best, as Norm shows, for certain applications such as landscape shots. But the KP is no slouch here either. My DA 15mm Limited or my DA 12-24mm are great for that. But what the KP cannot do is get the full wide angel shots from my FA 35mm f/2. Carried with the K-1 it would make for a very versatile lens, and reduce the weight and size of the whole ensemble to being quite moderate. The lens's image quality is notably fine, despite its being plastic.

[dafbp]

Interesting point at the end of the video: the size comparison with the mirrorless, and the KP is smaller.

[mikesbike]

Interesting point at the end of the video: the size comparison with the mirrorless, and the KP is smaller.

That was another design goal!

[Rondec]

Although brands do differ in implementations of the sensor, electronics, and software, the Bayer mess is pretty fundamental to the sensor pixel architecture and occurs BEFORE any electronics or software get their hands on the data. The "Bayer mess" that MJKoski spoke of arises on the optical side of how the sensor (fails) to capture light of all colors at all pixel locations.

Some cameras have built-in low-pass/anti-aliasing filters and their implementation won't have the "Bayer mess" that MJKoski spoke of. (And some Bayer mess issues can be solved by the K-1's antialiasing simulator).

Some lenses and imaging scenarios (wide-open softness, long-shutter blur, object motion, narrow-aperture diffraction, etc.) introduce enough softness in the image to not to have the "Bayer mess". (And these conditions benefit from turning off the K-1's antialiasing simulator).

Some photographers never take pictures of the kinds of details that can provoke the "Bayer mess". (And these conditions also benefit from turning off the K-1's antialiasing simulator).


You are entirely right about the PS-always-equals-or-exceeds-Bayer. In fact, even if the PS-merged image has unacceptable motion or lighting artifacts, the photographer still has the benefits of a choice of four RAW Bayer shots to choose from.

Cameras are just really good these days. I do think that the benefit of pixel shift for landscape type applications is pretty impressive. On the other hand, for outdoor macros it is basically useless (there is generally too much motion between shots, even on a still day for it to give benefit). To me, the biggest things that pixel shift helps with are color depth and shadow detail.

I think the goal some day would be to have something more like Foveon sensors, but without the negatives that they produce.

As far as the K-P versus the K-1, I think it is obvious where the K-P is going to lag. The biggest issue to me is that Pentax doesn't have very fast lenses for APS-C and so there is nothing like the DFA 15-30 in the APS-C range (the DA 12-24 is a stop slower). The DFA 24-70 isn't the best lens ever, but the DA *16-50 is worse. And so, while the cameras are both good, if you need to shoot in low light, particularly with wide-ish angle lenses, you are likely going to end up with a K-1.

[jddwoods]

Great video I like the way he presented both cameras side by side highlighting the key attributes of both. I will be looking at both later this year when I will have saved up what I need to upgrade my K-5. Actually after seeing this video, I am leaning toward the K-P. I really like the idea of compact camera with small lenses like my DA Limiteds and the ability to put on the grip for larger lenses. For me, size matters.
I also couldn't help but notice that with 30 major league baseball teams to choose from, he is wearing a New York Yankees cap!

[sundown]

I have to say I was giggling in the tube, as soon as I started watching the video, because I remembered someone here saying "Quick!!! Someone do an unboxing video of D FA 50/1.4 before the CameraVille guy" D

[mikesbike]

[quote=Rondec;4379620

As far as the K-P versus the K-1, I think it is obvious where the K-P is going to lag. The biggest issue to me is that Pentax doesn't have very fast lenses for APS-C and so there is nothing like the DFA 15-30 in the APS-C range (the DA 12-24 is a stop slower). The DFA 24-70 isn't the best lens ever, but the DA *16-50 is worse. And so, while the cameras are both good, if you need to shoot in low light, particularly with wide-ish angle lenses, you are likely going to end up with a K-1.[/quote]

I am liking my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 combo. And yes, the FF advantage is definitely true in the WA territory. The emerging DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 should be interesting, however.

[dafbp]

Good though it may be, for me the KP is only good as a 2nd camera. It's lacking for ergonomics, battery [model] and action photography.
If in immediate need, I'd get a K1 before a KP, reap the benefits, and consider the price surplus as an investment (3x the shutter life!).

[Saltwater Images]

I like my humble crop sensor (K-5II) and it is very fast with the HD DA Limited’s. The IQ from the DA* 60-250 is stellar but the AF is a touch slow for initial lock. Point-to-Point AF is much better. I love to see a DA* 16-50 replacement with faster AF.

[Eagle94VT]

Good video - I'll keep my toes in both the APSC and FF worlds. It'll be interesting to see what comes out next after the KP and K3. Both are great,

[alvaro_garcia]

Full Frame always a winner for me. You get a better dynamic range. And I love my APS-C's.

[str8talk83]

This is a great real world comparison. I agree with the posters applauding actually comparing data instead of making assumptions. The full-frame vs crop argument will always go strong, but I agree with norm that a FF camera for landscape and crop for wildlife makes sense for most of us. If money is tight, APS-C makes a lot more sense as well.

If I had endless funds, I’d shoot a 600 f/4 on a sturdy tripod with a full frame camera for wildlife. Even with that setup I might keep a crop camera around for handheld shooting.

[a_chernysh]

Full Frame always a winner for me. You get a better dynamic range. And I love my APS-C's.

I both agree with you and don't quite understand why is that. I think that today with all modern technology kp could give the same dynamic range given that they are both of the same (bayer) type - I doubt it's just because of the sensor size.
I have shot with kp for a little time and struggled sometimes with its colors.
Sold it. (Though months later I realized they were quite good, I just got used to my k5 artistic but not realistic colors )
Nevertheless, having shot just once with k1 in the shop, I was fully satisfied with the picture. Comparing to both, kp and k5.
Colors - photorealistic
SHADOWS - right where needed.
Shooting with crops portraits were kinda flat, lacking that shadow depiction, especially from k5.
That's why I'm leaning towards k1.

From k-1 II
https://photos.app.goo.gl/sPp64GMnsWxXA55W6


In the k1 picture colors of the clothes, hair strands are very accurate


From KP
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zU3EvLEeoPpyjpdd8


The kp colors are not ideal, softly put.

[csa]

Thank you for the video !
I found it very much to the point and subsequently made me rethink my decision as to whether wait for the "next APS-C Flagship" or just get the KP for the type of low light wildlife (birding) shots I have been doing for the past few months … I really like the fact that the KP can handle higher ISO settings and still keeping decent DR.

Same here. The only question I had; would the KP be an upgrade to my K3? Very little difference per review specs. K3 has 8.3 fps cont. shooting, vs 7 fps KP. Don't know how important this would ever be. I also noticed that the KP has the USB 2.0, while the K3 has the USB 3. This could make a difference down the road for connectivity.

I would lose the top LCD, but gain tilt back LCD on KP. Just don't know if there's enough difference for the price. I had considered the K1, however been reading about what lenses can/cannot be used with it.