Why wasn't there more fuss made about the KP's newer sensor?

reh321 · 11-26-2018, 08:23 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reh321

You must have missed the uproar over the K-1ii. The 'accelerator', first used on the K-70 then on the KP then on the K-1ii, reduces noise, but at the cost of a small loss of detail. I am saying that a 24mp image has enough detail that I can afford to have small amounts of it lost if the benefit is less noise; in your case, most likely a K-70 'raw' has at least as much detail, but less noise, than a corresponding K-5iis 'raw' does.

Originally posted by newmikey

All that says that, at equal settings, that particular 24mp camera resolves more detail than that particular 16mp camera. That goes nowhere to explain or backup your statement "With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR" and we're not talking about the K-3 here either. If you're just settling for any NR the camera firmware applies either in raw or before cooking the jpeg I would assume you'd have to settle for as good a compromise as possible between NR and detail retention. If all you care about is less noise, just apply a hefty amount of gaussian blur in post - you'll end up with zero noise (and a blurry image without any details).

I'm more interested in the SNR delivered in raw by any given camera model and I'll do my own noise reduction in post if needed. Then, I can analyze the noise characteristics of any given image and trade between detail and noise as much as I care for, using processor power, memory and processing time not available at the time of shooting due to hardware limitations of the camera.

Eventually, the K-70 SNR differs only slightly from that of the KP and only in the higher ISO ranges (which I tend not to use often). But you'll just say "whatever" again so I'm unsure why I'm spending time on this discussion.

So why are you spending so much time on this?

These words of yours have nothing to do with the last words I posted nor to the words you are claiming to respond to.

The words of mine that bothered you have nothing to do with comparing a KP to a K-70, and everything to do with comparing a KP to a {16mp} K-30.

Last edited by reh321; 11-26-2018 at 08:31 AM.

**Merv-O** · 11-26-2018, 01:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by newmikey

Fully agree! For me the articulated LCD is a godsend for shooting architecture straight up (not possible on a KP-type screen). Either KP or K-70 type LCDs work well for macro-work and very low viewpoints (such as the image of my dog I posted a few weeks ago) but to be able to mount the camera on a tripod and shoot (near)nadir images is a big pro to me. Other than that, both cameras share enough of a featureset to make them near-identical for my kind of shooting (no sports, no flash-photography). The features the K-70 lacks in comparison ended up not being as decisive. Both cameras have Av, TAv, M and B modes and those are the ones I use 99.99% of the time and both cameras deliver near-identical results in landscape photography at low to mid-range ISO levels (100-6400) where I spend most of my effort. As I shoot exclusively in PEF, I don't really care much about what either jpeg engine does in-camera either.

As to the build-quality differences some people seem to hang onto: I've always been able to keep all of my Pentax bodies in a decent condition and have been successful in selling them on 2nd-hand for a fair price so someone else could enjoy them. I don't think I've even come close to testing the limits of sturdiness of any of those cameras. The K-70 still feels quite solid and decent to me but I have the same argument as the one I use against "protecting" lenses with a filter: the cost of the risk of replacement materializing does not justify the extra expenditure if said expenditure is not proportionate to the cost of the equipment it is supposed to protect/replace. Same argument as the one used on insurances: "don't insure against the expected and the bearable".

With other words: if both K-70 and KP do what I need them to do from a technical perspective, deliver the same image quality, better build quality can/may account for a reasonable price difference. At the time of my upgrade from the K-5 IIs some 18 months ago, the price difference between K-70 and KP was nearly 90% and therefore not justified AFAIC.

All that says that, at equal settings, that particular 24mp camera resolves more detail than that particular 16mp camera. That goes nowhere to explain or backup your statement "With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR" and we're not talking about the K-3 here either. If you're just settling for any NR the camera firmware applies either in raw or before cooking the jpeg I would assume you'd have to settle for as good a compromise as possible between NR and detail retention. If all you care about is less noise, just apply a hefty amount of gaussian blur in post - you'll end up with zero noise (and a blurry image without any details).

I'm more interested in the SNR delivered in raw by any given camera model and I'll do my own noise reduction in post if needed. Then, I can analyze the noise characteristics of any given image and trade between detail and noise as much as I care for, using processor power, memory and processing time not available at the time of shooting due to hardware limitations of the camera.

Eventually, the K-70 SNR differs only slightly from that of the KP and only in the higher ISO ranges (which I tend not to use often). But you'll just say "whatever" again so I'm unsure why I'm spending time on this discussion.

Ha---Whatever !!!! Seriously, the Prime IV processor v. the Prime II processor in the K-70 does produce different results....while the differences may be miniscule to you, the density and the composition will be better in the K-3/KP. I know that the ISO limits in the KP are seriously higher than the K-70 and the 11 focal points are directly related to the same old K-50/K-5 on the K-70 does not compare to the 27 focus points on the KP....There are reasons why these cameras are in different price points. As I said The K-70 provides an advanced entry into DSLR world, the KP, K-3, K-1 series take it up a notch.

Again, it appears you are somewhat defensive about the K-70 and its limitations....I WILL REPEAT WHAT I SAID SEVERAL TIMES NOW: Just like any type of equipment, the person behind the lens ultimately dictates the quality and the differential of the shot itself. The right equipment in the right hands, always enhances the moment. The K-70 is a great camera I would take over any other brand in its class, Period. Now if you want me to take some RAW shots with the KP, I will do so and post them, but, that in and of itself isn't the whole story. I often shoot in JPEG with the K-3 and K-1ii because I can obtain an 85 JPEG out of the box with little or no editing. When you're taking 500 to 1,000 shots, it's significantly faster to produce quality photos with an ISO that is rrasoanable through 24,000.

SSGGeezer · 11-26-2018, 01:57 PM - **1 Like**

The K-70 and the KP sensors have slightly different dimensions 4000x6000px for the K-70 and 4000 x 6016 px so the KP has 64,000 more pixels. Model of the sensor may be different also but I have not seen a teardown of either that IDs the sensor used.

Breakfastographer · 11-26-2018, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by newmikey

That goes nowhere to explain or backup your statement "With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR" and we're not talking about the K-3 here either.

Misattributed quote.

stevebrot · 11-26-2018, 06:55 PM - **1 Like**

Despite almost 100 responses going down multiple garden paths, I still have to add my bit regarding the original post. It was in the marketing blurb and there was considerable discussion regarding a sensor new and unique to the KP, but most was obscured by conflation of that feature with excellent high ISO performance and speculation about the so-called accelerator unit (how much was the sensor and how much the magic box). As a K-3 owner, my reaction at the time was, "cool camera, excellent high ISO, too small for my hands,* lacks features that I use on the K-3, high hopes for the K-3/K-3II replacement, priced too high".

Steve

(...gotta get this posted before the mods close the thread to avoid a fist-fight...)

* I curl both my third and little finger under my K-3 as it is.

**Rondec** · 11-27-2018, 04:23 AM - **2 Likes**

I don't think anyone in this thread thinks the K70 isn't a nice camera. They just think that the KP offers a bit more with regard to image quality and features. Whether this is worth it to an individual photographer, only they can say. With the price drops on the KP for Black Friday, I think it ended up being 700 dollars with some extras, while the K70 is selling for 600. At 100 dollars difference in price, I would probably spring for the KP if I was going to buy one of the two, but that's just me.

**Merv-O** · 11-27-2018, 11:21 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

I don't think anyone in this thread thinks the K70 isn't a nice camera. They just think that the KP offers a bit more with regard to image quality and features. Whether this is worth it to an individual photographer, only they can say. With the price drops on the KP for Black Friday, I think it ended up being 700 dollars with some extras, while the K70 is selling for 600. At 100 dollars difference in price, I would probably spring for the KP if I was going to buy one of the two, but that's just me.

Exactly what I said previously....the KP offers more (just as the K-5 offered more than the K-50). The issue isn't whether the K-70 is bad, but whether you want/need more (KP). As for the differentials, the Prime IV processor is just better than the Prime II....newer faster, etc. There really is no debate here....and, as to the original purpose of the thread: Pentax did try to ballyhoo the KP, but it emphasized its size and adjustability versus the amazing IQ they fit into this camera. It is dimensionally smaller than my Leica M (though wider for sure), and weighs a bit less (I have a half-case/grip on the Leica which adds more weight).

Thagomizer · 11-27-2018, 11:26 AM

At one time I would probably have got the K-70; had I been able to wait a year (HA HA!) from when I got my K-S2, I would have had the K-70 instead. The better sensor and pixel shift would have been nice features. I was quite happy with my K-S2, but started thinking about an upgrade with the appearance of dark frames. ACB failure on my K-S2 (and the potential for the same to happen with a K-70) pushed me a bit closer to the KP even before I was able to borrow one to try it out, which sold me. I'm sure if things had transpired differently, I would have enjoyed a K-70 as much as I have my K-S2.

**Merv-O** · 11-27-2018, 08:50 PM - **5 Likes**

Taken with 18-55mm retractable lens--my first photo.....My dog Howard (a St. Bernard),The original "Sleeping Beauty".

An unretouched photo with no enhancements and no post-production editing... KP IQ looks good right out of the box.

reh321 · 11-27-2018, 09:39 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Merv-O

Taken with 18-55mm retractable lens--my first photo.....My dog Howard (a St. Bernard),The original "Sleeping Beauty".

An unretouched photo with no enhancements and no post-production editing... KP IQ looks good right out of the box.

and ISO=6400.

**Merv-O** · 11-27-2018, 10:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reh321

and ISO=6400.

Reh:
ISO 6400 and very little noise--that is really quite fine...also, the auto focus is a little faster than than the K-3 series, though it shares the 27 focus points.

**clackers** · 11-27-2018, 10:15 PM

Howard's pretty lovable, too!

**Merv-O** · 11-27-2018, 10:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

Howard's pretty lovable, too!

Thanks Clackers--he is a great dog...sloppy, but lovable! All 174 pounds of him.

**MiguelATF** · 11-28-2018, 01:52 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by monochrome

RE: the absent dash, the KP takes many design cues from the original AP.

With apologies to the OP/Original Poster - whose post was about, among other things, the newer generation of Sony sensor that the KP has - I simply have to go on record as saying that this photograph, by monochrome, of the KP side-by-side with the (was it 1957?) original Pentax AP - is simply a wonderful image. And he's right, it's obvious (to me at least) that the KP does take quite a few design cues from an elegant and functional Pentax which was produced approximately 60 years earlier!

HarisF1 · 11-28-2018, 02:20 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by MiguelATF

With apologies to the OP/Original Poster - whose post was about, among other things, the newer generation of Sony sensor that the KP has - I simply have to go on record as saying that this photograph, by monochrome, of the KP side-by-side with the (was it 1957?) original Pentax AP - is simply a wonderful image. And he's right, it's obvious (to me at least) that the KP does take quite a few design cues from an elegant and functional Pentax which was produced approximately 60 years earlier!

You're right

I also find it fascinating how the design of the K-1 takes cues from the legendary 67ii. Excellent design work for both current cameras.

11-26-2018, 06:55 PM - 1 Like	#95
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Despite almost 100 responses going down multiple garden paths, I still have to add my bit regarding the original post. It was in the marketing blurb and there was considerable discussion regarding a sensor new and unique to the KP, but most was obscured by conflation of that feature with excellent high ISO performance and speculation about the so-called accelerator unit (how much was the sensor and how much the magic box). As a K-3 owner, my reaction at the time was, "cool camera, excellent high ISO, too small for my hands,* lacks features that I use on the K-3, high hopes for the K-3/K-3II replacement, priced too high". Steve (...gotta get this posted before the mods close the thread to avoid a fist-fight...) * I curl both my third and little finger under my K-3 as it is. Last edited by stevebrot; 11-27-2018 at 10:08 AM. Reason: completeness

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
KP vs K-70 - to KP or not to KP, that is the question	OldChE	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	11-02-2019 05:29 AM
Why Pentax KP? Para que la Pentax KP?	ZeaFoto	Pentax KP	16	06-14-2018 08:53 AM
Best of 2016 The only meaningful photo I made in 2016, and I wish it wasn't	Wolfeye	Post Your Photos!	8	02-13-2017 04:34 PM
All the fuss about AF point size	Giklab	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	94	06-04-2012 09:35 AM
Why these speckles at iso 100 in K-7 that wasn't there with the K10D	pcarfan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	43	08-23-2009 10:19 AM

11-26-2018, 08:23 AM - 1 Like	#91
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by reh321 You must have missed the uproar over the K-1ii. The 'accelerator', first used on the K-70 then on the KP then on the K-1ii, reduces noise, but at the cost of a small loss of detail. I am saying that a 24mp image has enough detail that I can afford to have small amounts of it lost if the benefit is less noise; in your case, most likely a K-70 'raw' has at least as much detail, but less noise, than a corresponding K-5iis 'raw' does. Originally posted by newmikey All that says that, at equal settings, that particular 24mp camera resolves more detail than that particular 16mp camera. That goes nowhere to explain or backup your statement "With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR" and we're not talking about the K-3 here either. If you're just settling for any NR the camera firmware applies either in raw or before cooking the jpeg I would assume you'd have to settle for as good a compromise as possible between NR and detail retention. If all you care about is less noise, just apply a hefty amount of gaussian blur in post - you'll end up with zero noise (and a blurry image without any details). I'm more interested in the SNR delivered in raw by any given camera model and I'll do my own noise reduction in post if needed. Then, I can analyze the noise characteristics of any given image and trade between detail and noise as much as I care for, using processor power, memory and processing time not available at the time of shooting due to hardware limitations of the camera. Eventually, the K-70 SNR differs only slightly from that of the KP and only in the higher ISO ranges (which I tend not to use often). But you'll just say "whatever" again so I'm unsure why I'm spending time on this discussion. So why are you spending so much time on this? These words of yours have nothing to do with the last words I posted nor to the words you are claiming to respond to. The words of mine that bothered you have nothing to do with comparing a KP to a K-70, and everything to do with comparing a KP to a {16mp} K-30. Last edited by reh321; 11-26-2018 at 08:31 AM.

11-26-2018, 01:48 PM - 1 Like	#92
Merv-O Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Philadelphia Photos: Albums Posts: 2,098	Originally posted by newmikey Fully agree! For me the articulated LCD is a godsend for shooting architecture straight up (not possible on a KP-type screen). Either KP or K-70 type LCDs work well for macro-work and very low viewpoints (such as the image of my dog I posted a few weeks ago) but to be able to mount the camera on a tripod and shoot (near)nadir images is a big pro to me. Other than that, both cameras share enough of a featureset to make them near-identical for my kind of shooting (no sports, no flash-photography). The features the K-70 lacks in comparison ended up not being as decisive. Both cameras have Av, TAv, M and B modes and those are the ones I use 99.99% of the time and both cameras deliver near-identical results in landscape photography at low to mid-range ISO levels (100-6400) where I spend most of my effort. As I shoot exclusively in PEF, I don't really care much about what either jpeg engine does in-camera either. As to the build-quality differences some people seem to hang onto: I've always been able to keep all of my Pentax bodies in a decent condition and have been successful in selling them on 2nd-hand for a fair price so someone else could enjoy them. I don't think I've even come close to testing the limits of sturdiness of any of those cameras. The K-70 still feels quite solid and decent to me but I have the same argument as the one I use against "protecting" lenses with a filter: the cost of the risk of replacement materializing does not justify the extra expenditure if said expenditure is not proportionate to the cost of the equipment it is supposed to protect/replace. Same argument as the one used on insurances: "don't insure against the expected and the bearable". With other words: if both K-70 and KP do what I need them to do from a technical perspective, deliver the same image quality, better build quality can/may account for a reasonable price difference. At the time of my upgrade from the K-5 IIs some 18 months ago, the price difference between K-70 and KP was nearly 90% and therefore not justified AFAIC. All that says that, at equal settings, that particular 24mp camera resolves more detail than that particular 16mp camera. That goes nowhere to explain or backup your statement "With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR" and we're not talking about the K-3 here either. If you're just settling for any NR the camera firmware applies either in raw or before cooking the jpeg I would assume you'd have to settle for as good a compromise as possible between NR and detail retention. If all you care about is less noise, just apply a hefty amount of gaussian blur in post - you'll end up with zero noise (and a blurry image without any details). I'm more interested in the SNR delivered in raw by any given camera model and I'll do my own noise reduction in post if needed. Then, I can analyze the noise characteristics of any given image and trade between detail and noise as much as I care for, using processor power, memory and processing time not available at the time of shooting due to hardware limitations of the camera. Eventually, the K-70 SNR differs only slightly from that of the KP and only in the higher ISO ranges (which I tend not to use often). But you'll just say "whatever" again so I'm unsure why I'm spending time on this discussion. Ha---Whatever !!!! Seriously, the Prime IV processor v. the Prime II processor in the K-70 does produce different results....while the differences may be miniscule to you, the density and the composition will be better in the K-3/KP. I know that the ISO limits in the KP are seriously higher than the K-70 and the 11 focal points are directly related to the same old K-50/K-5 on the K-70 does not compare to the 27 focus points on the KP....There are reasons why these cameras are in different price points. As I said The K-70 provides an advanced entry into DSLR world, the KP, K-3, K-1 series take it up a notch. Again, it appears you are somewhat defensive about the K-70 and its limitations....I WILL REPEAT WHAT I SAID SEVERAL TIMES NOW: Just like any type of equipment, the person behind the lens ultimately dictates the quality and the differential of the shot itself. The right equipment in the right hands, always enhances the moment. The K-70 is a great camera I would take over any other brand in its class, Period. Now if you want me to take some RAW shots with the KP, I will do so and post them, but, that in and of itself isn't the whole story. I often shoot in JPEG with the K-3 and K-1ii because I can obtain an 85 JPEG out of the box with little or no editing. When you're taking 500 to 1,000 shots, it's significantly faster to produce quality photos with an ISO that is rrasoanable through 24,000.

11-26-2018, 01:57 PM - 1 Like	#93
SSGGeezer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Indiana, U.S. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,845	The K-70 and the KP sensors have slightly different dimensions 4000x6000px for the K-70 and 4000 x 6016 px so the KP has 64,000 more pixels. Model of the sensor may be different also but I have not seen a teardown of either that IDs the sensor used.

11-26-2018, 06:31 PM	#94
Breakfastographer Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 673	Originally posted by newmikey That goes nowhere to explain or backup your statement "With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR" and we're not talking about the K-3 here either. Misattributed quote.

11-27-2018, 04:23 AM - 2 Likes	#96
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I don't think anyone in this thread thinks the K70 isn't a nice camera. They just think that the KP offers a bit more with regard to image quality and features. Whether this is worth it to an individual photographer, only they can say. With the price drops on the KP for Black Friday, I think it ended up being 700 dollars with some extras, while the K70 is selling for 600. At 100 dollars difference in price, I would probably spring for the KP if I was going to buy one of the two, but that's just me.

11-27-2018, 11:21 AM - 1 Like	#97
Merv-O Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Philadelphia Photos: Albums Posts: 2,098	Originally posted by Rondec I don't think anyone in this thread thinks the K70 isn't a nice camera. They just think that the KP offers a bit more with regard to image quality and features. Whether this is worth it to an individual photographer, only they can say. With the price drops on the KP for Black Friday, I think it ended up being 700 dollars with some extras, while the K70 is selling for 600. At 100 dollars difference in price, I would probably spring for the KP if I was going to buy one of the two, but that's just me. Exactly what I said previously....the KP offers more (just as the K-5 offered more than the K-50). The issue isn't whether the K-70 is bad, but whether you want/need more (KP). As for the differentials, the Prime IV processor is just better than the Prime II....newer faster, etc. There really is no debate here....and, as to the original purpose of the thread: Pentax did try to ballyhoo the KP, but it emphasized its size and adjustability versus the amazing IQ they fit into this camera. It is dimensionally smaller than my Leica M (though wider for sure), and weighs a bit less (I have a half-case/grip on the Leica which adds more weight).

11-27-2018, 11:26 AM	#98
Thagomizer Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: London Ontario Posts: 2,068	At one time I would probably have got the K-70; had I been able to wait a year (HA HA!) from when I got my K-S2, I would have had the K-70 instead. The better sensor and pixel shift would have been nice features. I was quite happy with my K-S2, but started thinking about an upgrade with the appearance of dark frames. ACB failure on my K-S2 (and the potential for the same to happen with a K-70) pushed me a bit closer to the KP even before I was able to borrow one to try it out, which sold me. I'm sure if things had transpired differently, I would have enjoyed a K-70 as much as I have my K-S2.

11-27-2018, 09:39 PM - 1 Like	#100
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Merv-O Taken with 18-55mm retractable lens--my first photo.....My dog Howard (a St. Bernard),The original "Sleeping Beauty". An unretouched photo with no enhancements and no post-production editing... KP IQ looks good right out of the box. and ISO=6400.

11-27-2018, 10:03 PM - 1 Like	#101
Merv-O Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Philadelphia Photos: Albums Posts: 2,098	Originally posted by reh321 and ISO=6400. Reh: ISO 6400 and very little noise--that is really quite fine...also, the auto focus is a little faster than than the K-3 series, though it shares the 27 focus points.

11-27-2018, 10:15 PM	#102
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Howard's pretty lovable, too!

11-27-2018, 10:32 PM - 1 Like	#103
Merv-O Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Philadelphia Photos: Albums Posts: 2,098	Originally posted by clackers Howard's pretty lovable, too! Thanks Clackers--he is a great dog...sloppy, but lovable! All 174 pounds of him.

11-28-2018, 01:52 AM - 2 Likes	#104
MiguelATF Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Somewhere in Southern Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 464	Originally posted by monochrome RE: the absent dash, the KP takes many design cues from the original AP. With apologies to the OP/Original Poster - whose post was about, among other things, the newer generation of Sony sensor that the KP has - I simply have to go on record as saying that this photograph, by monochrome, of the KP side-by-side with the (was it 1957?) original Pentax AP - is simply a wonderful image. And he's right, it's obvious (to me at least) that the KP does take quite a few design cues from an elegant and functional Pentax which was produced approximately 60 years earlier!

11-28-2018, 02:20 AM - 2 Likes	#105
HarisF1 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 543 Original Poster	Originally posted by MiguelATF With apologies to the OP/Original Poster - whose post was about, among other things, the newer generation of Sony sensor that the KP has - I simply have to go on record as saying that this photograph, by monochrome, of the KP side-by-side with the (was it 1957?) original Pentax AP - is simply a wonderful image. And he's right, it's obvious (to me at least) that the KP does take quite a few design cues from an elegant and functional Pentax which was produced approximately 60 years earlier! You're right I also find it fascinating how the design of the K-1 takes cues from the legendary 67ii. Excellent design work for both current cameras.