[reh321]

We have been through all this detail/noise discussion before in the K-1/K-1 II threads.

One of the things that irritated me about the K-1ii discussion is that we should have had that discussion first here - but getting back to the OP, everyone seemed to be ignoring the 'accelerator' until it was force-ably brought to attention by the K-1ii.

[HarisF1]

One of the things that irritated me about the K-1ii discussion is that we should have had that discussion first here - but getting back to the OP, everyone seemed to be ignoring the 'accelerator' until it was force-ably brought to attention by the K-1ii.

I think instead of ignoring it, we maybe attributed too much of the improvement over the K-3 to it. And that's only after people saw past the 'limited' features of the body itself. I've had a KP for a good while now and I absolutely adore it. It barely gets any use over the K-1 but it's there as an awesome travel option.

[reh321]

I think instead of ignoring it, we maybe attributed too much of the improvement over the K-3 to it. And that's only after people saw past the 'limited' features of the body itself. I've had a KP for a good while now and I absolutely adore it. It barely gets any use over the K-1 but it's there as an awesome travel option.

When the K-1ii was first announced, most people were dismissive of the improvements over the K-1 .... then once they became aware of what the 'accelerator' does, some became livid. I attributed all that to initial ignorance of the 'accelerator'; if there is a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.

[HarisF1]

I think our difference in view is only because I feel the accelerator does a pretty decent job. Sure it may reduce detail when pixel peeping but most users don't look that deep.

[reh321]

I think our difference in view is only because I feel the accelerator does a pretty decent job. Sure it may reduce detail when pixel peeping but most users don't look that deep.

I totally agree with you. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise.
My issue is with the people who went from "no big deal" to panic overnight, because they hadn't bothered to learn about the K-70 and KP {back to Original Post}

[totsmuyco]

I have a k-5II and a k-3II. If I have the money now I'd buy 5 of it. 2 for my son, 2 for my daughter couple them with the 16-85, 55-300 PLM and probably a 10-20 sigma. The other 1 will be for me to use for travel photography. How I wish this sensor could be placed in a k-3 like body with a much better AF.C. That would be a mean machine APSC camera.

[Rondec]

?

You would have to argue that somehow there is less noise in the KP to begin with than the K-70, @Breakfastographer, and you have no way of telling that.

The RAW files in the KP have been doctored by the accelerator chip before they land on your SD card, and there is no control to turn it off.

We have been through all this detail/noise discussion before in the K-1/K-1 II threads.

The discussion of the K1 versus K1 II made it very clear that the accelerator was doing a lot less than people at first thought. I own both a K-1 and K-1 II and the K-1 II files are a bit cleaner with a small loss of detail, but it isn't dramatic, whereas the improvement of the KP over the K3 was pretty significant. Clearly there are a couple of factors at play here, but a new sensor probably helps with the dynamic range at higher isos.

[HarisF1]

In hindsight I'm sure people would have tempered their expectations slightly. The KP would have been seen as the stepping stone towards a K-3iii, with a forward thinking design and the showing off of the new sensor and processing capabilities. I'm sure it would have been more successful had Pentax really pushed it properly and it also means we would have had more interest (and progress) in the new APS-C flagship.


The K-1ii would be a slight upgrade for the professional tog with its AF and colour improvements.

As it stands, sentiment is sadly a little negative towards both of these bodies and it's really down to Pentax's marketing. At some point it may deal fatal damage to the brand.

[Merv-O]

In hindsight I'm sure people would have tempered their expectations slightly. The KP would have been seen as the stepping stone towards a K-3iii, with a forward thinking design and the showing off of the new sensor and processing capabilities. I'm sure it would have been more successful had Pentax really pushed it properly and it also means we would have had more interest (and progress) in the new APS-C flagship.


The K-1ii would be a slight upgrade for the professional tog with its AF and colour improvements.

As it stands, sentiment is sadly a little negative towards both of these bodies and it's really down to Pentax's marketing. At some point it may deal fatal damage to the brand.

THE K-1ii just got ranked number 1 pro-sumer's choice by photo mag in Australia for 2019. In the U.S, it was rated number 2....."sentiment" is not negative on this camera....the fact that it is nearly $1,000 less than the comparable 'CaniKon' flagships, and in many ways surpasses them, means RICOH/Pentax is doing fine in that regard.
The KP received rave reviews for its forward design and revamping of the DSLR as the format is under heavy pressure to downsize. The feature set and the accelerator in the KP's IQ, make it a very current machine (not ti mention the upgraded AF--27/25 cross-over vs.11/9 cross-over in older design.
I do agree the KP was initially maligned because it was not a full evolution of the K-3 series--it created a new APS-c pathway that is now just being emulated by other manufacturers.

[Mikesul]

I am curious to know what the reception for the K-1ii and KP has been in Japan, China and other Asian countries. Any interesting reviews or evaluations from that part of the world?

[Merv-O]

I am curious to know what the reception for the K-1ii and KP has been in Japan, China and other Asian countries. Any interesting reviews or evaluations from that part of the world?

The KP did very well in Japan and was well rated...it curiously did not do as well in the rest of the world because the world was looking for a straight up K-3 series replacement. The KP, with certain revolutionary features (i.e,, adjustable grips--3 programmable wheels, ergonomics/size, etc.) actually had newer IQ than the K-3 series and a boosted processor/sensor....all the while, the Western APS-c users were ignoring an otherwise excellent camera.

[Mikesul]

The KP did very well in Japan and was well rated...it curiously did not do as well in the rest of the world because the world was looking for a straight up K-3 series replacement. The KP, with certain revolutionary features (i.e,, adjustable grips--3 programmable wheels, ergonomics/size, etc.) actually had newer IQ than the K-3 series and a boosted processor/sensor....all the while, the Western APS-c users were ignoring an otherwise excellent camera.

Well, yes, that is the generally understood US response. What I was hoping for was someone with direct experience of Asian markets and publications who could characterize response there. We are an international forum with many members from those countries.

[house]

?

You would have to argue that somehow there is less noise in the KP to begin with than the K-70, @Breakfastographer, and you have no way of telling that.

The RAW files in the KP have been doctored by the accelerator chip before they land on your SD card, and there is no control to turn it off.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

Am I reading the above graphs the wrong way or do they suggest the k-70 also has baked in NR? The graphs look quite similar except for a slightly better result from the KP at some iso levels.

[ZombieArmy]

The KP did very well in Japan and was well rated...it curiously did not do as well in the rest of the world because the world was looking for a straight up K-3 series replacement. The KP, with certain revolutionary features (i.e,, adjustable grips--3 programmable wheels, ergonomics/size, etc.) actually had newer IQ than the K-3 series and a boosted processor/sensor....all the while, the Western APS-c users were ignoring an otherwise excellent camera.

Sounds like the makings of a future cult classic. Given the current megasales going on the KP I feel like it's going to be discontinued before it needed to and the next camera quickly ushered in.

[reh321]

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

Am I reading the above graphs the wrong way or do they suggest the k-70 also has baked in NR? The graphs look quite similar except for a slightly better result from the KP at some iso levels.

The K-70 is virtually the same as the KP .... the KP has better build quality and there are some things {such as your "slightly better result"} that lead to arguments of whether the sensor is exactly the same or not, but clearly usage of the 'accelerator' is identical .... so the Original Post could be asked about it also.