|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-12-2018, 12:23 PM
|
| |
And I sometimes wonder why when I post a bunch pf jpegs from a day's work, some are 75 Kb, some are 1.4 MB, sometimes one even hits 2MB. I'm assuming some kind of lossless compression in your case, with Pentax having the more efficient compression engine. What else could it be?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-12-2018, 07:29 AM
|
| |
It would be funnier if people didn't have to waste their time refuting their non-sense.
It blows me away that some people try and convince other Pentax users there is a problem, when so many are actually happy with the product.
We've already seen the damage to Pentax these folks cause. Cancelled or delayed orders, over complaints many actual users have never experienced.
Slander is a way to get attention I guess.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 08:05 AM
|
| |
And the thing that gets found in this is that so far, there is no credible evidence that there is any need to do that.
The fact that some "chicken little's" pronounce that there have been fiasco's doesn't make it true.
What I see is less resolution in some parts of the images, more resolution in other parts of the images, some really bad studio work by the testers at DPR, and seriously, as a guy who spent some time in various studios, I'd be embarrassed to have published the work they did. Overall the images are cleaner, no question about that. The loss of resolution thing is debatable.
I'd be disappointed if Pentax took the time and money to put on an un-necessary switch on a feature just to degrade it's performance. They've got bigger fish to fry on a limited budget. I trust the judgement of real photography engineers over website attention grabbers any day.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 06:41 AM
|
| |
We should be so lucky. But now that they are owned by Amazon, it could be a lucrative way of raising money for lens development. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 05:38 AM
|
| |
Ya, I'm waiting for the IR images. These guys simply stated, are a clown show.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 03:58 PM
|
| |
This is the way the world works these days.
 Quote: It does appear that the K-1 II
So, if you shoot raw and post process shooting at ISO 500 and pushing (within reason) later might be a good strategy. Some one says something "appears to be true." and therefore something "might" be a good strategy.
And a bunch of people start talking like it is true, and test the solution. Internet wisdom at it's best.
Well, don't guess, if you think something is true, prove it. Don't speculate based on a speculation.
And post irrefutable evidence that everyone can agree on. If that was your proof, it's sorely lacking.
And personally, it's my opinion that people should be banned from the site for quoting DPR over here. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 10:55 AM
|
| |
ISO invariant? Is that a thing? Did you guys just make that up? Maybe you could show some test images, done by someone with an ounce of credibility to explain what you're talking about. What exactly is the problem. And don't even try and post MJKloski's evidence. The guy can't tell the difference between sharpness and contrast. I have long under-exposed and pushed both film and digital to increase contrast and the accompanying perception of sharpness so I understand what he did, and i also understand why it doesn't mean what he thinks it means.
I'm still looking for some evidence to let me think this might be a real thing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 09:51 AM
|
| |
True, and I have always said, good pictures don't come from high ISO. Yet people continue to harp on the benefits of high ISO images. In these discussions, minute bits of resolution are proclaimed to be worth switching brands for, while larger issues like the loss of resolution due to increased noise, loss fo Dynamic Range and colour depth are ignored as if they don't exist.
Back in the day (k-5 vs D800) I posed the question "How can you compare high ISO settings and claim one is better than the other, when at 100 ISO they are practically identical and the high ISO image is never as good as the 100-400 ISO image?"
The question has never even been adressed though asked a hundred times. When high ISO comes with the same dynamic range, colour depth and resolution as lower ISO images, I may be more inclined to pay attention to these things.
But to be blunt, the argument is over which crap image is better, when any neutral observer would say, I'm not switching brands so my crap images will be slightly better than someone else's crap images. I trash all crap images. And I certainly don't make camera purchasing decisions based on them. The only thing that matters to me is what is the highest ISO I can get a decent image from? That's gone from 400 ISO with the K20D to 3200 ISO on the K-1.What happens at 102,000 ISO is of little interest.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 07:41 AM
|
| |
Bypass the accelerator because people want the opportunity to see detail obliterated by noise? As in below.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 07:26 AM
|
| |
To quote myself (ad nauseam)
the basic premise, that Pentax noise reduction causes significant losses in resolution is unsupported by the data, not by DPR;s opinions, but by looking at the actual images.
The only reason people get conned by these completely unscrupulous, anti-rigour type sites, is they don't check the work themselves. If you believe the shoddy work DPR writers do and don't check up on them, their ignorance will be your ignorance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 06:25 AM
|
| |
Are you in the middle of making a purchasing decision? Is that why this is relevant?
Pixel Shift gives you less noise and more detail. That's a bad thing if you like noise.
There are lots of noisey cameras out there to choose from.
But the basic premise, that Pentax noise reduction causes significant losses in resolution is unsupported by the data, not by DPR;s opinions, but by looking at the actual images.
Which reminds me of quote I heard once "Our study shows that in 60% of studies published the conclusions are not supported by the data". DPR's conclusions are neither rigorous or supported by their own data.
If you put so much weight into what they say at DPR, follow their advice. Most of us don't agree with their interpretation of their images. We've already rejected them out right as bunch of losers. Coming here and asking us to advise your decision based on your acceptance of their information is pointless. We've looked at the images. They don't say what DPR says they say. Most of us have moved on.
If you believe what DPR says, buy the camera they recommend. My suggestion is, it's going to be an expensive lesson for you, but it's your choice.
The only question is do you want the increase in resolution Pentax NR brings by reducing random sensor artifacts and quantum level noise (which the human eye brain combination deliberately filter out) , or don't you? Do you want pictures? Or science experiments?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 06:07 AM
|
| |
Here in we have the difference in philosophies that drives this conversation. You like noise and want camera makers to produce cameras that make noisy images.
Given that fact, the only people who are going to be vaguely interested in your point of view will be other who like noise. Personally, I prefer a more true rendition of the scene as I perceived it.
I've also encountered in the early days of photography, photographers who liked pixelation and produced huge images that displayed every picture as a composition of 1/8 inch squares, It looked like a mosaic. I didn't like that either.
If your thread title was "I like noise and I'm disappointed with the K-1 mkII" there would not be a single objection to your line of thinking.
Personally, I don't see noise in the real world and I don't want it in my pictures, no matter how pleasing some might find it.
But bottom line, I won't be selling anything to you, and you certainly won't be selling anything to me. Nor will you be selling to anyone who thinks like me, which I suspect is a very large segment of the population.
Noise is the grown up equivalent to splatter paint techniques. It's still art, just not for everyone.
Just like splatter painting a photograph with random paint dots would produce a noisy but possibly pleasing image, noise actually decreases detail by over writing it with random artifacts.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 05:47 AM
|
| |
Two words "cloning tool".
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
|
| |
Man, now that's impressive.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 08:29 AM
|
| |
Everyone should keep in mind. It doesn't matter what negative people see. If you are happy with the images their opinion won't matter. Not everyone is crying the blues, in fact some seem quite happy.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 02:02 PM
|
| |
[quote=awscreo;4274326]I don't think we could've expected much higher rating for such a minor upgrade. I bet the true successor for K-1 would be much higher rated, I think a lot of review websites value tech and hardware upgrades highly (hence creaming over Sony's in general)[/quote
And I would think the new release wouldn't be rated lower than the previous model. Just because you own a website doesn't make you an expert on anything.
Simple fact, if building up Nikon, Canon and Sony makes DPR more income than building up Pentax they will do that. facts be damned.
They are basically corporate ho's selling exchanging credibility for a few bucks.
That being said, nobody seems to be able to support Pentax with their low market share, except for Imaging Resources. They seem to be able to do "just the facts ma'am" with impunity and are probably the only website other than this one worth supporting. I learn more from one image comparison on Imaging Resources than I have ever learned in all the nonsense posted on DPR.
DPR are neither credible, nor do they posses the integrity of a used ar salesman. As pointed out many times, they are so biased they can't even correctly interpret the meaning of their own sample photos.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 09:13 AM
|
| |
Thanks for posting... all the "the improvements aren't worth it" nonsense is really getting out of hand. IN what ludicrous imaginary universe do a group of engineers work on improving a product for a year and a half and come up with nothing, and then try and sell that "nothing" to the public?
With regards to the K-1ii most of the site seem to be becoming bunch of lunatics.
People need to understand that being a person who doesn't appreciate the improvements shouldn't lead to them becoming the voice of the forum. There seem to be members on this site who bought the K-1ii just to trash it. But the simple fact remains one member's inability to understand and make use of the improvements doesn't mean they aren't there. It just means some are incapable fo accurately assessing their value.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 08:25 AM
|
| |
Cross posted from the other thread on this topic.
After all the bother about noise at high ISO being so important that I've seen threads where people advocated buying 12MP full frame over a 16 MP APS-c camera for the supposed better high ISO performance, even when the APS-c had a much higher rating on DxO, I refuse to even read this article.
DPR used low light performance to trash Pentax when Pentax was already pretty good at it, now that Pentax has put some money into increasing low light performance, it's not worth upgrading for. You will never see a bunch of more two faced, target changing hypocrites than DPR.
The question is not whether or not everyone should upgrade, the question is who should upgrade. Wedding photographers, come to mind. Every little bit of high ISO performance counts. Anyone doing low light candids on a regular basis or event photography. And I'm completely over the top tired of having to correct the nonsense published over at DPR. It's getting to the point where if I see DPR in a thread, I'm not going to read it, except to ask folks not to repeat what they read over there, over here.
DPR deserves the NPF label. Not Pentax Friendly.
In the 7 years of cruisiing the internet since I became an active PF member, I have not one quote from DPR I ever felt was worth posting. I refer to Imaging Resources , Photozone and other sites all the time. If after 7 years all a site has done is waste your time maybe it's time to start hoping for it's demise. In my book, DPR is doomed.
But maybe someone can post something useful they rad on DPR to justify it's existence. Maybe I just missed it. Until someone does I'm comparing them to the anit-christ, and crossing myself every time I hear them mentioned. And I'm not even Catholic. :D It's just a precaution lest i become infected. :D
The site is truly diseased.
|
