|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-27-2018, 02:01 PM
|
| |
Will see. I used two K-1s side by side to create stereo photography images for one of my projects. The project is over and I can sacrifice one camera for the upgrade. I will keep your posted when I have a chance to compare them after the upgrade.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-26-2018, 12:26 PM
|
| |
All right then, I will send one of my K-1s for an upgrade. At least I will have one original K-1 to fall back on if I do not like Mark II.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-25-2018, 12:05 PM
|
| |
This dude is just a buffoon. He could equally review house vacuums just to promote himself.
---------- Post added 09-25-18 at 12:30 PM ----------
It very well may be that the accelerator unit deliberately filters out or selects what data will be passed to the Prime IV processor before it is recorded into a RAW file. In this respect yes, the RAW file will contain less data than initially was read from the sensor. However, the Prime IV processor itself further modifies image data before writing it into the RAW file as well. If you just write whatever data you can read from the sensor into a RAW file, it is going to be quite large and with a lot of digital garbage and noise that will be very hard to deal with, if possible at all, in the post processing. So what we call a RAW file, it is already "cooked" to a certain degree by the camera processor.
As for the AF, no one precisely knows whether the accelerator unit plays any role in it. Judging by 0.5 sec AF improvements with screw drive lenses and almost no gain with SDM lenses, my guess is that Ricoh engineers allowed more current draw for the AF motor to make it more responsive. And may be some improvements in the focusing algorithms on the software level.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-24-2018, 10:32 PM
|
| |
How many people ordinarily If you do it routinely, my hat goes off to you.
Most of the people just put a zoom lens something 28 - 70 or 105 and shoot whatever interesting comes their way.
As for the if you shoot RAW only it really doesn't matter much. You just apply proper noise reduction filter / algorithm in post processing either to the whole image or masked area of it as needed. I use Darktable on Linux for this purpose.
I am not arguing with you that but how to process its composite RAW image outside of the camera?
Please take a look at this review: PENTAX K-1 Mark II????????K-1??????????DPReview?????????? - ?????
just enable translation from Japanese to English in your browser.
Then go to Comparative image of ISO 800, 3200, 25600 section of it and compare night images between K-1 II and K-1.
You will notice that K-1 images though more grainy, provide better fine details and resolution than K-1 II images.
Inability to adjust or turn off the accelerator unit by the user when needed is my greatest biff against K-1 II.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-24-2018, 04:29 PM
|
| |
Thank you Not a Number, this review was very helpful.
While I really appreciate this unique Mark II upgrade opportunity presented by Ricoh, I believe that not everyone would benefit from it.
Evaluating my own use cases for K-1, I came with the following either negative or not so important list of K-1 II improvements, addressed by the review, which would not warrant upgrading my plain K-1 to Mark II specs:
1. "K-1 II's battery life has decreased slightly (from 760 to 670 frames) due to the incorporation of the image accelerator noise reduction chip." 90 shots less? I don't like this!
2. "K-1 and K-1 II are almost identical regarding dynamic range, especially at lower ISO values." and "accelerator unit is meant to improve noise handling, not dynamic range." No dice for Mark II in here.
3. AF-S wise "K-1 II is ahead of the K-1 with [some] screw-drive lens." and "Improvements average around 0.5 seconds when using the viewfinder." Only 0.5 sec? Who cares!
4. "Differences . . . are less dramatic with [some] SDM lens." In one case, "Using the viewfinder, the K-1 II leads by a half-second for very low light levels, but the two cameras are almost identical as soon as EV values reach 1.25, a low level in itself." In another case "Using the viewfinder, gains are less than 0.2 seconds on the tested range, often less." Your index finger reaction time when you take a picture is much slower than that!
5. AF-C Forward Movement "K-1 II performed marginally better." "The gain is around 5% more "good" images." I wonder, can you really perceive this 5% gain in practice?
6. AF-C Backward Movement "K-1 II offers visible improvements" when "K-1 did slightly better, with "good" results higher than 70% for the first time." I cannot remember when last time I was shooting something which was moving away from me to take advantage of this AF-C improvement.
7. AF-C Lateral Movement "there is no significant difference between the two cameras." and "the differences are so small as to be irrelevant." Most of my picture shootings involve lateral movement. So, no dice for Mark II in here too.
8. Day Time. Colors In-camera JPEGs "At ISO 102400 and higher, the original K-1 does seem to preserve details a bit better, at the cost of higher noise." "The two last ISO steps [409600 and 819200] are all but unusable on the K-1 II." "The K-1 II is able to preserve details better than the K-1 when using in-camera JPEGs at the ISO values that will realistically be used by users." "The gains are small, but visible." but "at lower ISO value (ISO 6400 or below) differences are all but impossible to spot." I personally don't care, I do not shoot JPEGs anyway.
9. Day Time. Processed RAW "Neither camera pulls ahead strongly" and " clarity seems higher with the K-1, which can be interpreted as being sharper." and "Using RAW files, the color differences . . . all but disappear." This is very important to me, because I shoot RAW only!
10. "K-1 II . . . does produce images that appear to have a lower clarity setting." "The development software and its settings have a significant impact." Which is always true!
11. Night Time. In-camera JPEGs "The two cameras are indistinguishable below ISO 6400." and "at ISO 204800, the K-1 appears to preserve colors better than the newer model in low light." It is a pleasant surprise to me!
12. Night Time. Processed RAW "differences are subtle." Again, no dice for Mark II.
13. Dynamic Pixel Shift. "Currently, no PC software can process RAW Dynamic PS files automatically." Well, I would not use it anyway.
And this review
Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com
speaks about my major concern, the accelerator unit:
"The Image Accelerator clearly has an effect on RAW files. At the same time, though, fine edge details are slightly clearer in the K-1's more noisy file, and perhaps the shadows have a hint more detail." and "in JPEG mode the K-1 II is a clearer winner, with hardly any pixel-level noise . . . However, . . . the K-1 does render fine details more clearly."
I see RAW DNG as an "original image negative" which can be stored indefinitely and post processed every time when new and better post processing programs and algorithms become available. Once you modify RAW file itself, there is no way back. Means that you'll be stuck forever with whatever noise reduction algorithm was directly applied to the file. Had Ricoh preserved an option to turn the accelerator unit off when it is not needed, then it would be a different ball game. But for now, I personally see no benefits in shelling out almost a third of a new K-1 II camera price for such a marginal and maybe detrimental for some of its uses upgrade.
Those who are raving about how their upgraded K-1 became better, faster and more intelligent are forgetting about the "must have" effect. And once you spent $550 you will perceive that everything became faster and better. Psychologically, very few people would admit that what they got in return isn't worth the money they spent. As for K-1 II AF improvement, I would dare you to conduct an experiment. Take one K-1 and K-1 II. Put some stickers over their K-1 and K-1II logos, so you don't know which is which. Then take a number of pictures with both cameras side by side, as you ordinary would, with the same set of lenses and using OVF. Then try to tell the difference between performances of their AF-S and AF-C. If this test done blindly, under normal circumstances, you won't be able to tell one camera from another.
|
