[MMVIII]

Hi,

I just had a look at the review of one of the recent new kids on the block, the mirrorless Canon EOS R6. In the image comparison tool at the other site I always switch to the latest Pentax cameras, just out of curiousity and to see how the previous (until now still actual) offers from Pentax perform in regard to this new and shiny stills image cameras.

What should I say, just have a look for yourself:

Here the R6 compared to the Z6 and the A7 III:

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

At base ISO there is a huge difference, with a clear winner, the K1 II. At 3200 ISO the difference in detail is still stunning - again in favour for the K-1 II.
You can play the same game even with the KP, at higher ISO you might adjust for one LV level because of the difference in sensor format and compare ISO 1600 to 3200 FF of the newest generation, but it is holdings it's position very well.
Changing to R5 and other recent mirrorless contenders shows that they can gain a little bit with more expensive cameras, but still, the not so fresh K-1 II is still in the top of the performers in stills image quality.

What does that mean?

As I always claimed: the theoretically possible loss of minuscle detail of AC-pipelined Pentax cameras in comparison with an imaging pipeline without this chip is by far outweighed by the overall performance of the current Pentax setups in comparison with other systems.
If K-new will focus on stills image quality and manage to improve even further it will be a safe thing to claim it reaches FF-stills quality with an APS-C sensor.

Cheers,
M

In the end, we will see, but I am just impressed by the performance of the contemporary Pentax system and somehow I feel confirmed in my assumption that the development of the last few years in the field of mirrorless cameras has not brought any significant improvements in stills image quality.

---

Last edited by MMVIII; 09-01-2020 at 02:42 AM.

[Paul the Sunman]

Yes, very apparent. But why is the R6 Raw file only half the size of the others?

[MMVIII]

Yes, very apparent. But why is the R6 Raw file only half the size of the others?

The R6 is a 20 Mp FF camera, thus I compared it to the KP. But the R5 is a 44,8 Mp FF camera, and it does not change the situation significantly.

[Rondec]

Yes, very apparent. But why is the R6 Raw file only half the size of the others?

Fewer megapixels.

The interesting thing is that many people have said that bigger megapixels lead to better image quality, but clearly that isn't exactly the case.

[MMVIII]

Fewer megapixels.

The interesting thing is that many people have said that bigger megapixels lead to better image quality, but clearly that isn't exactly the case.

bigger pixels or more megapixels? It is apparently not significantly improved in both cases.

[Serkevan]

In the end, we will see, but I am just impressed by the performance of the contemporary Pentax system and somehow I feel confirmed in my assumption that the development of the last few years in the field of mirrorless cameras has not brought any significant improvements in stills image quality.

For an even funnier result, add the Nikon D7200 or the Sony A6000 to the comparison. There is a visible difference... but it's at 100% peeping and I'm not sure how much would be because of using a different lens (the APS-C Nikons certainly show more purple fringing and that's not really sensor-dependent).

Sensors in the last 6 or 7 years have hit a soft wall - there are improvements in readout speed for video and such, but the days of a camera making visibly better pictures than last year's model are long gone. Pentax's strategy of slow releases packed with new features is, IMO, the most sensible way.

-The K-1 debuted the new cross tilt screen, illumination LEDs for night photography (also backlit in the next one?), 5-Axis SR, third e-dial.
-The KP made itself an incredible travel camera with the accelerator, small form factor and cramming the third dial (with customizable options this time!), for extra control.
-The K-New will have the best APS-C OVF, a new AF architecture and who knows what else.

---------- Post added 09-01-20 at 03:14 AM ----------

Fewer megapixels.

The interesting thing is that many people have said that bigger megapixels lead to better image quality, but clearly that isn't exactly the case.

Bigger pixels = lower noise at 100% pixel view. Key point being "100% pixel view". Of course, once you blow up the images to the same physical size the difference is much smaller because the higher MP image is magnified less. Sensor tech is more important than megapixel count (although smartphone pixels are so tiny that there's a limit somewhere there).

As for quality of prints, I'm a total novice so I can't say whether there is a huge difference. I am perfectly comfortable printing K-7 images at A4 size and K-1 images don't even sweat at A3, but that's totally unscientific

[Paul the Sunman]

The R6 is a 20 Mp FF camera, thus I compared it to the KP. But the R5 is a 44,8 Mp FF camera, and it does not change the situation significantly.

The R5 is clearly closer to the K1, but still not quite on a par. You could say it's the lens that makes the difference, but a Canon 50mm f/1.2L should be able to hold its own against the old FA 77 Limited. And yet, despite the price difference, the R5 will outsell the K1 many times over. (Of course, it's probably superior in many other ways, but IQ isn't one of them.)

[MMVIII]

The R5 is clearly closer to the K1, but still not quite on a par. You could say it's the lens that makes the difference, but a Canon 50mm f/1.2L should be able to hold its own against the old FA 77 Limited. And yet, despite the price difference, the R5 will outsell the K1 many times over. (Of course, it's probably superior in many other ways, but IQ isn't one of them.)

Yes, right. As a stills photographer I really don't expext the mirrorless systems to give me much improvement in the achievable image. They might have some nice gimmicks for the process of image taking, but I still very much enjoy the ergonomics of a dslr...

[MMVIII]

Okay, can't help but keep looking at the comparison.

Conclusions:

the accelerator chip is not taking away the slightest detail. In comparison with the R5 at 12800 Iso the K1-II has less noise and still more detail. In comparison with the R6 and its huge pixels it hast still way more detail and the noise has finer grain.

I am really stunned and looking very forward to the new generation of Pentax processing pipeline.

[gatorguy]

Gosh, thanks for that image comparison. I certainly expected better imaging from the new Canon's compared to the now getting long-in-the-tooth K1's, but clearly that is not the case.

Looking at the eyes in the portrait sample's and the colors in the marker's section I was very pleasantly surprised at how the Pentax outperformed the latest R5 and R6 cameras from Canon. Yes I changed the Nikon out for the R5 since not comparing to the mirrorless R5 flagship would be the likely complaint from Canon fans.

A better still for a third of the price is a nice little perk.

[D1N0]

The chip in the K-1/K-1 II has not been optimized for read out speed. Which is more important for video heavy use. Faster read out means more noise and less DR. It is a trade off the camera makers are making to be able to compete in the 4K Video race at ever higher frame rates.

[photoptimist]

Gosh, thanks for that image comparison. I certainly expected better imaging from the new Canon's compared to the now getting long-in-the-tooth K1's, but clearly that is not the case.

Looking at the eyes in the portrait sample's and the colors in the marker's section I was very pleasantly surprised at how the Pentax outperformed the latest R5 and R6 cameras from Canon. Yes I changed the Nikon out for the R5 since not comparing to the mirrorless R5 flagship would be the likely complaint from Canon fans.

A better still for a third of the price is a nice little perk.

Canon spends more money on marketing than on R&D. Pentax spends more money on R&D than on marketing.

That means Pentax gets better images but, alas, Canon gets bigger marketshare.

As a photographer, I prefer having a better camera rather than having a more popular camera.

[gatorguy]

The chip in the K-1/K-1 II has not been optimized for read out speed. Which is more important for video heavy use. Faster read out means more noise and less DR. It is a trade off the camera makers are making to be able to compete in the 4K Video race at ever higher frame rates.

IF I had any interest in video, which I don't, I would take the advice of the pro I was talking with in Orlando who tried to convince me wedding shoots were relatively easy and profitable (!): Get the new-ish Blackmagic 6K and don't depend on one camera for both video and stills.

EDIT: That and a K1 would cost less than one Canon R5. That's a surprise too.
Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K CINECAMPOCHDEF6K B&H

[MMVIII]

IF I had any interest in video, which I don't, I would take the advice of the pro I was talking with in Orlando who tried to convince me wedding shoots were relatively easy and profitable (!): Get the new Blackmagic 6K and don't depend on one camera for both video and stills.

EDIT: That and a K1 would be no more than one Canon R5. That's a surprise too.
Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K CINECAMPOCHDEF6K B&H

You would need two R5s anyway, 20 minutes of filming is at least 10 minutes of cooldown... another reason for dedicated stills cameras

[ffking]

The chip in the K-1/K-1 II has not been optimized for read out speed. Which is more important for video heavy use. Faster read out means more noise and less DR. It is a trade off the camera makers are making to be able to compete in the 4K Video race at ever higher frame rates.

I really wish that reviewers in general were more aware of the fact that most things in design are trade-offs and improving one thing has a cost in another (even if it's only literally a financial cost) rather than criticise as faults things that are the flip side of things they praise