[biz-engineer]

It's possible Pentax was slightly more aggressive in the noise reduction when programming the K-1ii's accelerator.

The accelerator is purely hardware at the back of the sensor, it's the same chip on the KP and K1. On the KP the 24Mp sensor already run into lens optical res. roll off, while on the K1 the pixel pitch is a bit high.

It’s it a big difference? Not really. In practice, the difference is very small and I never felt disappointed with the K-1 Mark II’s capability to resolve detail at high ISOs.

Next week I'll receive further 24"x 36" prints, so far so good. After looking at print results, and necessary sizes for the frames...(...), I suddenly stopped seeing any interest in adding to the comments of a number of threads in the forum, because a lot of discussions are only relevant in the context of pixel peeping. I concluded that the K1 and K1II are both really really good, deliver more resolution than most people actually use.

[luftfluss]

The accelerator is purely hardware at the back of the sensor, it's the same chip on the KP and K1. On the KP the 24Mp sensor already run into lens optical res. roll off, while on the K1 the pixel pitch is a bit high.

Well then there is some ambiguity because this is what Pentax says:

PRIME IV with RICOH Developed Accelerator Unit

The PRIME IV with 14-bit imaging processing engine coupled with our original Accelerator Unit, (a RICOH developed processing device) effectively suppresses noise and reproduces fine-details with rich colors even at high ISO levels.The Accelerator Unit was first introduced in the PENTAX K-70, followed by the KP and is now being introduced in the K-1 Mark II, marking the 3rd generation. We have been able to achieve the highest results from this newly designed Accelerator Unit based on our increased knowledge and experience.

[interested_observer]

I have had a K1 now for about 18 months after waiting a year to see how it performed here on the Forum. I too also had the opportunity to have the body upgraded to the MkII. Early in the upgrade window I was excited to do the upgrade, but wanted to understand what it actually did. As everything unfolded, the upgrade was primarily enhancing the high ISO, which started around ISO 1600 to 3200. So, for me, I saw little benefit. Then about 6 months ago, I found this website which actually had a comparison. Just select the K1 and K1 II from the scrolling list on the right hand side.

• Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

What you will instantly see is that the Accelerator chip kicks in at ISO 800 (where I shoot astro), and it has a defined benefit of 1.66 stops of dynamic range (over the original K1). That information right there would have been enough to move me off the mark. It would have made a difference to my shooting - but the information was not really available by last Sept (I didn't find it till earlier this year - and I was reading everything).

Am I bummed? No, not at all. I actually have no regrets not upgrading. The additional dynamic range would have been nice, but I get a tremendous amount all ready, so I'm very happy and pleased. I shoot at ISO 800 and run astro exposures at 50 to 70 seconds at 15mm. I'm very happy with the results.

Now there is an astro based review by Lonely Speck (Ian Norman) at this link. He even shot the Milky Way with the 24-105 lens at f4 and got great results.

• Pentax K-1 Mark II Astrophotography Review – Lonely Speck

This last weekend I took an abbreviated 3 day - night photography (Milky Way) course through a local camera shop for $99 bucks, from the same lady that conducts the 3 - 4 day course ($3K to $4K) for Arizona Highways and she shoots for them too. She also offers the same course through her own company for about $2k. She has shot with just about everything, but currently a Sony A7rIII. There were about 30 of us, all total - last Saturday night we were out shooting. She came around to everyone in the evening to see how everything was going - me and the K1, and she was very interested in the K1 (both on the night shot and the next day post processing everything). She just might be acquiring a K1 just for the astrotracking. She has an equatorial tracker, but at times Polaris is not visible, etc. - and the K1's calibration is very simple.

The group had a wide range of bodies and lenses. A lot of D800/D810s, 5D4s, a lot of the Sony A7rII and III, etc, etc., etc. The K1 held its own very easily.

[MegaPower]

go with K1 if it is significantly cheaper.
go with K1ii if they are about the same cost.

[GXAlan]

While I don’t personally have the original K-1 with which to compare this K-1 Mark II, in DPReview’s full review of the K-1 Mark II, they showed that the original K-1 could resolve slightly more detail at ISOs above 400. It’s it a big difference?

This is what I was pointing out earlier. In the center, the K-1c (Classic) is sharper than the K-1 II at Dpreview’s comparison shot. BUT if you look at the corners (say top right watercolor brush), the K-1 II is sharper, suggesting a shift in focus rather than actual difference.

---------- Post added 05-05-19 at 07:16 PM ----------

I stack my astrophotos. Currently using a iOptron Star Tracker and will take 10 or so 60 second or more images and then take several low ISO images for the foreground. These are blended in processing.


Just how bad is this during stacking of images? This is concerning for me.
.

I haven’t gotten my K1 II yet but I wasn’t able to find a cheap K1 anyway.

1) PentaxForums’s review of the two is flawed. While the crop they show reveals similar stars, that actual full res images shows fewer stars on the K1-II under very high scrutiny. So the claim that there are equal number of stars is incorrect.

But I actually think that the K1 II is slightly misfocused so there is less ability for the faint stars to reveal themselves. But I need to test it to confirm that it is not a blur/noise reduction issue.

It is possible that this may be an area where the K1 is better since you do see pinpoint faint stars and I don’t see them on the K1 II *full res* pic from the review here.

The Japanese link I posted earlier has very convincing images in favor of the Mark II.

[biz-engineer]

So the claim that there are equal number of stars is incorrect.

If this is the statement, it is obviously incorrect because the number of stars in the milkyway is certainly more than any camera can record.

[luftfluss]

Despite the nit-picking WRT the accelerator in the K-1 ii - and it really is nit-picking IMO - it seems to me that either of the K-1's is the best turnkey solution for astrophotography and star-laden landscapes out there. The big thing is to make sure Pentax (or a 3rd party) has the lenses you want.

[GXAlan]

If this is the statement, it is obviously incorrect because the number of stars in the milkyway is certainly more than any camera can record.

Well, sure. I know a little about deep sky astrophotography as my friend shoots with a Paramount ME and MX and has a RCOS Carbon Truss 12.5” Ritchey-Chrétien and a Takahashi TOA-150 and FSQ-106EDXII. I shoot with a modded Vixen SXW/NexSXD and a TEC 110FL.

One of the strengths of astrotracer is being able to shoot 150-300mm without any polar alignment or bulkiness.

When looking at dim stars, I see more on the K-1 sample shot than the K-1 Mark II sample shot, to the extent that if I had a stack a 10 or so images, I would expect those dim stars to make a difference.

(But as I have said, the K1-Mark II appears to be just slightly out of focus, which for these dim stars may distribute the luminous flux enough across several pixels.)

This is NOT Sony stareater problem (where even bright stars are lost)
The Star Eater Issue: Why I No Longer Recommend Sony Cameras for Astrophotography

I am just saying that the jury is still out on K1 Mark II performance for astrophotography.

[TerryL]

The accelerator is purely hardware at the back of the sensor, it's the same chip on the KP and K1. On the KP the 24Mp sensor already run into lens optical res. roll off, while on the K1 the pixel pitch is a bit high.



Next week I'll receive further 24"x 36" prints, so far so good. After looking at print results, and necessary sizes for the frames...(...), I suddenly stopped seeing any interest in adding to the comments of a number of threads in the forum, because a lot of discussions are only relevant in the context of pixel peeping. I concluded that the K1 and K1II are both really really good, deliver more resolution than most people actually use.

I have the K-1 and some really good Pentax lenses, and I'm not moving. I absolutely love it.