|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-18-2018, 06:40 AM
|
| |
This needs some rough focusing first and then the adapter finishes off the process. Certainly it isn't something that is going to have great tracking auto focus or be super-speedy.
Overall, I do find the focus on specifications to be a bit aggravating. The goal should be to create good images, not to have cameras with top end technical specs. With that in mind, a photographer's skill is far more important than the camera used.
I still use my K-01 a lot and it does pretty decently.
 Field of Barley by Vincent1825, on Flickr
It isn't fast, doesn't have the best dynamic range out there, doesn't have top end anything, but compared to what Ansel Adams used, it is tiny and much faster.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-18-2018, 02:25 AM
|
| |
Who said anything about only taking pictures of still things? You just said that pixel shift was useless in the real world and I disagreed.
You can take photos of whatever your skill as a photographer allows you to take photos of with Pentax gear, same as with any other brand. There is nothing that limits you to landscapes and macro.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-17-2018, 03:12 AM
|
| |
You are right, if you have a good copy of the 50 macro. But apparently theirs has decentering or something as the right upper quadrant of their test image is really soft throughout. As it currently stands, people are constantly pulling bits out of that part of the image and you can't draw much conclusion from them as a result.
As to the general question, I have yet to see someone take a photo which was "damaged" by the noise reduction offered by the K-1 II. Obviously this is a new camera and so we don't have much in the way of examples, but I see people blowing up pixels and pointing out specks of dust that may be missing at iso 800. But when I shoot at iso 800 it isn't generally with the intention of printing big enough that dust pixels will show up and the bigger issue is whether the overall image is effected and my guess is that it isn't.
I still am waiting on the astro photographers among us to test if this will affect star fields (I don't shoot astro myself), but that is the one application where I think this might have a negative aspect to it.
In general, I have said before and I will say again, the accelerator more than matches the majority of photographers ability to denoise an image without losing detail, with minimal time and effort involved. And that second part is really important as well and not to be glossed over. Even if you can get roughly the same results running your images through DXO Mark's PRIME noise reduction software, that takes time -- quite a bit of time to run each image through. From an efficiency stand point, this is a definite winner with minimal clear loss.
It feels as though you and several others are arguing more on the principle of the thing. RAW files just should be pure with minimal pre-processing done on them. Even if you could show that no detail was lost at all it would just feel wrong to do noise reduction of some kind on the RAW file.
I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax does eventually allow some tweakability to this to allow it to kick in at different isos, but certainly at the upper end of the iso spectrum there is no point to even shooting those unless you have some noise reduction, whether in camera or out of camera.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-14-2018, 10:27 AM
|
| |
Fun stuff.
I would just say that for still photography, particularly landscape and architecture, Pentax cameras do really well. Pixel shift and astro photography are probably the big things that I see as beneficial. And yes, you can use pixel shift with images where there is some movement. I shoot landscapes with it all the time without problem.
 Before Dawn by Vincent1825, on Flickr
 Bug (crop) by Vincent1825, on Flickr
 Trees by Vincent1825, on Flickr
(all pixel shots with some movement in the scene, processed with Raw Therapee).
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 02:43 AM
|
| |
I think Stochastic Resonance would be a great name for a band.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 10:24 AM
|
| |
With these sort of isos it is best to contemplate at what size you could actually print/view it. My guess would be that A5 and smaller probably would look OK at iso 12K. Certainly there isn't going to be great detail in either image. The smoothing may help with the K-1 II image, but as you say, neither one is great.
My guess is that this is the sort of iso that you are using for journalism/sports where you are attempting to freeze motion in sub-optimal light and if you capture the action, people will wink at the fact that dynamic range isn't great and there is some noise in the final image. And for family snap shots, who really cares?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 07:39 AM
|
| |
You say that, but it doesn't make any sense to me. My understanding is that accelerator doesn't do anything below iso 640. Therefore it is possible to change that threshold up or down and have it kick in at a higher iso. I don't know that it is just a line of code that needs to be changed to have it kick in at, say, iso 1600, but certainly it should be possible.
What I don't think is likely would be to allow it to just be turned off completely.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 06:56 PM
|
| |
Who would expect maximum detail at iso 800 -- much less higher than that? Yes, there may be a tiny bit more detail in the K-1 file at iso 800, but that is the only iso where that is true. In all other iso levels the K-1 II is equal or better. It is really hard for me to tell if there is real detail as well that is better at iso 800 because what we are seeing is more noise and yes, noise and grain give the impression of more detail, even if it is all just random.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 10:38 AM
|
| |
I guess I would trust them more if they had real photographers shooting and if I didn't have the impression that their impressions are skewed by free gear/trips from camera companies. The Online Photographer doesn't usually do detailed reviews of gear, but gives a better overall feel for how a camera works in the field.
I think most people are aware of how much a full frame SLR weighs and truthfully, the K-1 II isn't significantly heavier than the K-1 and they didn't mention it in that review. I always hate when people pick on details that should be obvious. When they say about a prime lens that it isn't a zoom or isn't wide enough or something like that. If they say about SLR that it doesn't have an EVF or is too heavy.
Oh well, probably time to let it go. DP Review hasn't changed much over time, although they didn't used to be quite so into mirrorless cameras as they are now.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 02:55 AM
|
| |
Folks here have a "relationship" with the k mount. I, personally, have spent several thousand dollars on k mount lenses. That is a lot of money for a hobby photographer with four kids. If Pentax went away tomorrow or just stopped investing R and D money in new K mount cameras, I would have to spend quite a bit of money to switch brands.
As to the whole DP Review review, I think the big thing is that it would be nice if there was consistency in the reviewing process. Cameras like the D850 should be slammed for being big if that's a problem. There needs to be a deep level search for cooking of raws and demote all cameras for those sorts of things -- including Sony's lens adjustments, if they can't be turned off. Overall there needs to be a greater emphasis on real world shooting and printing. MJKoski, you have specific needs for a camera and it seems as though the K-1 II isn't the right one for you. As I recall, the original K-1 (without accelerator chip) wasn't right either. But few of us are shooting the same sorts of things or printing at the size you are and few cameras are up to that challenge. That doesn't mean that all of those cameras that won't hold up to a ten minute exposure or printing to two meters on a side are terrible cameras, but they certainly are the right camera for you.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 12:02 PM
|
| |
I just wish they would say "These are the areas where your photos will be worse with the accelerator chip" and then show examples. If it does eat stars with astro photography, then show that. But to this point, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Same with landscapes or macro photography or wildlife.
You mentioned landscapes and my experience is that I don't shoot landscapes very often above iso 200 or certainly 400 so this wouldn't even affect me. I doubt portrait or wedding photographers would notice the difference either, since they are often wanting to soften skin as well.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 10:41 AM
|
| |
There is way too much micro analysis going on here. Maybe Pentax was "asking for it," by basically releasing two versions of the same camera -- one with accelerator chip and one without. People have to know how this works.
At the same time, I just don't see this level of micro analysis with other cameras looking for the tiny signs of brands massaging raw files. Because it is clear that like it or not, "Everyone is doing it," to a lesser or greater extent. The question isn't whether the raw files are slightly cooked when we first start working with them, it is whether the cooking gives some kind of major negative effect in the end.
That is exactly what this sort focus ignores. The forest and the trees are all still there. There is less noise in the trees, but at most printing/viewing sizes the difference will not be perceptible and in fact the cleanness of the K-1 II images is likely to be perceived well by those viewing the images.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 03:43 PM
|
| |
It is impressive how much they ignore the K-1 II's good qualities and harp on the things they perceive as its negatives. The whole noise reduction thing/accelerator chip is just a non-issue to me. If they are going to dock Pentax for a barely perceptible smoothing visible at 200 percent, then they really should kill Sony. I just looked at the A7r III review and it mentions nothing at all about "star eating" or smoothing of raw files. Personally, I don't have an issue with it if it isn't going to be visible in the finished print (the star eater does seem to affect astro photography), but it is problematic that they aren't routinely looking for smoothing and docking all camera brands that do it.
It doesn't affect my interest in the K-1 II, although I am more likely to upgrade my current K-1, a stop improvement in high iso with such minimal cost is a win in my book.
Edit: I will mention that there have been a few who have posted K-1 II images in the post your photos thread for the K-1 and the level of detail seen there is impressive and I certainly don't see anything concerning. In particular, the bird images of vcollerp are excellent. Of course, he did great with a K-1 so that isn't surprising, but certainly there isn't a step back with the K-1 II.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 12:46 PM
|
| |
The odd thing to me is that I too, find the "artifacts" they mention not to be significant and the lettering to be more readable with the K-1 II.
|
