|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-16-2018, 03:26 AM
|
| |
Interesting. Are we viewing 100% crops here?
Matti, do you have like-for-like examples between the K-1II and a 10-year-old DSLR that we can compare? It's a genuine question. I'd be interested to see the comparison. Your opinion is useful, and qualified, but as we've discussed and demonstrated before, there's often a subjective element involved...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 09:36 AM
|
| |
Back in the day, they actually did this :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 08:46 AM
|
| |
My post might have been worded better, I'll admit... what I meant was "these are professional-level tools in every respect" - i.e. they're more-or-less as capable as the Adobe products that are the professional mainstays. For amateur and independent professional photographers, they're darned good options. But I can certainly see why, if you use a suite or combination of tools at work, you wouldn't want to use something completely different at home :o
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 04:31 AM
|
| |
I've never used full PhotoShop - only PhotoShop Elements 14 (which I didn't like much), and that may be an advantage for me, in that I have no expectations of the UI in GIMP. It seems pretty easy to use (I'm running v2.8.x), and for most of what I need to do, quite straightforward. But I can believe it might not be as polished as PhotoShop in terms of the UI. It fits my requirements, though, and I do like the price :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 04:22 AM
|
| |
I'm in danger of boring people senseless with my posts about this, but after several years of of being a very happy Lightroom 6 user, I've switched to digiKam (for library management), Darktable (for RAW development) and GIMP (for PhotoShop-style image editing). I trialled Darktable for several months to ensure it did what I needed, before making the jump. Mine is installed on Linux, but the same tools are available for Windows.
These are professional tools in every respect. Very close in capabilities to Lightroom and PhotoShop - in some ways, not quite as good (but not far off), and in other ways, a little better. Darktable, in particular, is easily equal to Lightroom 6. Actually, in most respects I prefer it.
They're mature, stable products that are actively developed to offer new and improved features and performance at regular intervals. Oh, and they're very well documented.
Best of all, they're completely free.
If you don't want to pay for Adobe's subscription products (that's how they lost me as a customer), you might try the tools I've mentioned. It takes a little while to learn how things work, but it's not a difficult proposition - and it's well worth the effort :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 11:24 AM
|
| |
Sure. But then, the image processing path has changed. Very positive effect in some ways, but it has a negative impact in others. Depending on your priorities, the net result could be better or worse overall.
Let's hope they can add an NR toggle through firmware, that way both camps will be happy :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 11:19 AM
|
| |
It certainly doesn't look good. I guess the take-away here is, don't use pixel shift at mid-to-high ISOs... Same for Sony's electronic shutter, if you want the best looking out-of-focus rendering.
Reminds me of the old joke:
A man goes to see his doctor and says "Doc, it hurts when I do this”...
...and the doctor says “Then don’t do it”.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 03:54 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 02:59 AM
|
| |
Question - why would someone use pixel shift at ISO 800? Given that it's a multi-shot facility, we're really talking about stationary subjects (whatever manufacturers may do to handle some degree of subject movement) - so if the subject is stationary, why not use ISO 100 or 200 for the best possible IQ in each frame, and a slower shutter speed? Is it for astrophotography, where higher ISO levels are needed to keep the shutter speed reasonable and capture stars without creating trails - or am I barking up the wrong tree?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 12:17 AM
|
| |
I posted this in another thread, but thought it worth repeating here (though I don't generally endorse duplicate posts)...
DPR's K-1II test images demonstrate serious lens-related problems... See below... The first image shows the comparison of the bottom right corner of the test image, comparing K-1 and K-1II, where everything looks good on both images. The second image shows the top right corner, where the K-1II image clearly shows a lens issue; and not a minor one either... it's dreadful. We know this can't be the K-1II's processing at fault, because it handled the bottom right corner perfectly.
Sadly, the upper right corner is where that green feathery foliage area resides, that some believe shows a loss of detail on the K-1II's files. Again, I'm not saying the K-1II isn't applying noise reduction (we know certainly that it is), nor that the noise reduction isn't reducing detail slightly as the ISO level rises (as any noise reduction would); only that DPR's test shots can be very misleading so far as detail is concerned. And we have to wonder whether their assessment of the K-1II's IQ is based on these flawed images. Still, they are useful for assessing the noise characteristics, at the very least.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 04:30 AM
|
| |
The detail from the Foven sensor is quite amazing. I'm quite surprised that you don't find the artefacts annoying, though, given that you have very high standards for IQ (and I don't say that as a criticism - merely an observation). I only have DPR's test shots to review, but at 100% reproduction I see many strange little artefacts - cross-hatching and lines - in some of the face shots... They wouldn't bother me personally, but they're clearly visible. Also, I have to agree that the colours are very odd indeed - certainly when compared to all the other major manufacturer interpretations. That said, it's all adjustable in post-production if you've the will to do so (in Sigma's case, though, with their own app or nothing else - sadly)...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 09:43 AM
|
| |
Here's another DPR comparison, just for fun... This one between the K-1II and and the A7R3. Taken from the central area (since we've pretty much established there's a lens-related sharpness / focus problem in the upper right of the K-1II test image)... Detail looks very, very similar indeed. Perhaps a shade more detail on the A7R3 due to less noise reduction, but then we get the benefit of less noise on the K-1II image. Swings and roundabouts.
I mention this not to discredit the view that the K-1II is performing noise reduction with the potential to remove a tiny amount of detail... indications suggest that is indeed the case, at least from the sources we've been able to reference thus far. But it's interesting to see how little difference there is in these shots between the K-1 / K-1II and the afore-mentioned A7R3...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 09:20 AM
|
| |
This is why we have to be very careful accepting DPR's test shots as evidence without questioning them. DPR's shots don't bear out your experience with the A7R3... see below, a comparison between the original K-1 and A7R3 at ISO6400 (compared at same physical subject dimensions). Aside from the fact that the green feathery stuff has clearly moved position slightly, the noise characteristics are remarkably similar (maybe a tiny edge in favour of the K-1), and in terms of detail - for this part of the test shot, the K-1 looks a little better to me. YMMV, though...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 01:11 AM
|
| |
Agreed, that's the right approach here. If Ricoh can offer firmware that allows the accelerator NR to be (a) switched off altogether, (b) level adjusted, and/or (c) customised by ISO level (perhaps that's expecting too much?), then it's a "best of both worlds" situation.
This should have been done ready for release, undoubtedly.
I wonder if Ricoh involves its brand ambassadors in the early testing stages of new cameras? It seems someone would have picked up on this in advance, had they used a pre-production model in anger...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 12:45 AM
|
| |
I don't doubt that the effect is there, but there's something not right with the test photo conditions, as @Oakland_Rob noted. If you compare the central area of the K-1 and K-1II shots, they're both sharp, but move out to that greenery in the top right and the K-1II shot looks blurred even at base ISO. The lens is playing a part here, IMHO. That's not to say the noise reduction isn't having an impact - it obviously is, but I don't feel we're comparing like for like optically and that's skewing the results somewhat...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 03:28 PM
|
| |
We're kind of back where we started, with you comparing the K-1II's images to a cell-phone, and me disagreeing wholeheartedly for what I consider to be a gross exaggeration. Similarly, I see no "mess" in the example shots I've reviewed - though I do see some very slight evidence of the effect you describe at 100% reproduction.
When all's said and done, it's going to be a subjective thing for the individual photographer. Some will prefer the K-1 files, others will prefer the K-1II. You're in the K-1 camp, and that's fine. Different strokes for different folks, right?
I do think it would be great if somehow, given the image pipeline of the new camera, the noise reduction in the image accelerator could be disabled or adjusted. That would give us the best of both worlds... maximum detail for those who require it, and better noise handling for those who prefer that.
Hopefully we'll find out soon enough whether that's possible or not...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 02:51 PM
|
| |
Perhaps not... and, yet, it's a great update for those who value cleaner files. I've yet to see anyone reproduce the same clean output and detail reproduction on high ISO K-1 files using post-processing software (I played with comparison files from both the K-1 and K-1II in Lightroom 6).
Some people are going to be very happy with the K-1II, others - like the OP - less so. Personally, I suspect I'd be very happy with one... then again, I shoot a Sony A7 MkII alongside my Pentax gear, and apparently it eats stars. I wouldn't know. What I do know is, for my own photography, it produces great-looking RAW files...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-06-2018, 05:00 PM
|
| |
Do you mean brand biased? :hmm:
In addition to Pentax I shoot, and really like, Sony gear (and I'm a non-moderating member of an E-mount forum). I also shoot a Sony A99-based A-mount Hasselblad HV. For some specific applications, I actually prefer my Sony gear over Pentax...
I've said here on the forums several times that I don't do brand loyalty. I shoot what I like and what works for me. I'm not a brand ambassador - I'm a hobbyist. I have no doubt I could be happy with ANY brand of camera; I just happen to like my Pentax gear.
I consider myself to be a fairly level-headed bloke with balanced opinions. If anyone chooses to suspect I'm biased, that's up to them - but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect their courtesy, if not an open mind :o
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-30-2018, 03:12 AM
|
| |
@clackers and @Rondec - you really are too kind. Very much appreciated & thank you sincerely :)
Occasionally, some folks forget (or may not realise) that I'm a regular member here first and foremost, and I use these forums like everyone else for learning, help (in both directions) and sociable discussion / debate. Many of my thread replies, and my efforts to keep things objective and friendly, are from my position as an active forum member and Pentax shooter. But because I have the word "Moderator" under my user name, I can see why my personal contributions might sometimes be confused with attempts to interfere and over-reach my moderating responsibilities. That's never my intent, though :o
Anyway... back to the K-1II :p
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-29-2018, 07:46 AM
|
| |
@reh321 and @normhead - thank you both, you're very gracious :o
We mods try to keep things level-headed for everyone. I'll be the first to admit I don't get it right all of the time, but all of us do try our very best...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-28-2018, 02:08 PM
|
| |
Further to the above...
Using LR on its own, I challenge anyone to come up with better - in fact, *as good* - results overall from the K-1's high ISO file than the K-1II is managing all by itself (at least for the provided test shots). I consider myself to be quite proficient with noise reduction and sharpening techniques, and I'm amazed at how good the K-1II's ISO 6400 file is right out of the camera. Plus, it responds nicely to very gentle (e.g. <= +15) luminance noise reduction in LR.
I realise a lot of people won't care about this ISO level and will be more interested in detail at lower ISO settings, but for me this thing could be a monster... And I'm not even planning to buy one...
Yet... :lol:
Maybe I'll wait until those that don't like it start selling theirs. That would give me time to sell off some of my accumulated stuff and raise the necessary funds :p
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-28-2018, 01:35 PM
|
| |
I wonder if you folks have read the just-released K-1 vs K-1II image comparisons from @Adam - here:
Pentax K-1 II vs K-1 Noise Performance - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com
I've posted my comments to that article, but reproduce them here for reference:
My first comment:
Thanks for the comprehensive comparison shots - very useful indeed, and much appreciated. Personally, I like the K-1II output better. The colours, in particular, are much richer compared to the K-1 as the ISO increases. The K-1II plant image at ISO 6400 looks a little out-of-focus? But otherwise, I'd be happy with the level of detail I'm seeing, and I'm wondering if the K-1's images might look a little sharper *because* of the noise (noise and grain can give an illusion of sharpness, as we all know). We all need to remember that we're looking at 100% pixel-peeping reproduction here. At typical reproduction sizes and viewing distances, the extremely minor softness described simply won't be noticeable. Of course, we'll need to see further examples and findings from those who use the K-1II for very fine detail work (feathers, fur, textile fibre etc.), but overall it looks good to me. Thanks again for the tests!
... and my second:
UPDATE: I've downloaded the files and I've been comparing the ISO 6400 shots in LR6. The K-1II seems to perform more noise reduction in the dark colours and shadows, and seems to reconstruct colour (very successfully!) using neighbouring pixels. This results in much better colour reproduction, but does lead to a few errors (the white lettering and outlines on the circuit board show these at 200% reproduction). Noise reduction in lighter areas seems minimal. There also appears to be very subtle sharpening going on in the K-1II files. This too may be responsible for the "errors" I mentioned previously. Either way, I'm extremely impressed with the K-1II at ISO 6400. At 100% reproduction it looks very slightly more processed in certain areas, but I can live with that. At typical reproduction sizes, these files will rock!!
I'd further comment that, as per our discussions in this thread, I see details lost in the K-1II files that are in the K-1 version, and vice versa - i.e. in some cases, the K-1II files have details that are missing from the K-1. I think it's going to take some time for users to conclude which is better or worse for them, but I suspect it's going to be highly subjective :o
I know where my money would go, though :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-27-2018, 08:11 AM
|
| |
Fascinating! Thanks for this :)
Again, interesting - hadn't thought of that!
Could be. After gaweidert's interesting printing lesson, I'm leaning towards the assumption that these lines might actually be on the colour chart, and that the K-1 and K-1II are simply reproducing them slightly differently (although that, too, could be down to the RAW converter).
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-27-2018, 12:05 AM
|
| |
Welcome to the forums, and thank you for posting this!
Looking at the ISO 6400 comparison, I see a slightly odd diagonal line artefact (sloping down from left to right) in the more pastel-like shades for the K-1II - especially cyan, green, red and black. Anyone else notice that, or am I imagining it? :hmm: Actually, I see it in the pastel red and black on the K-1 shots too, but less so. I wonder if it's the printing process of colours on the test chart that I can see...
Otherwise, from a noise-handling perspective the K-1II looks good - within the limitations of the test charts, at least...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-25-2018, 01:35 AM
|
| |
For sure - I agree, there's a big difference - at least so far as the end result is concerned :)
Agreed again. These are the NR functions performed within the sensor module itself, so far as I'm aware.
This is where we diverge (just a little). My understanding is that Sony's BIONZ engine is broadly equivalent to Pentax's PRIME engine, albeit to Sony's processing specifications. Both carry out some degree of noise reduction, plus an undoubtedly large amount of other processing on the data received from the sensor module. See Pentax's own text re PRIME IV on the K-1:
"The K-1 features a newly designed PRIME IV imaging engine. Compared with the previous PRIME III version, it is fine-tuned to process higher-resolution images, while boosting the operating frequency by nearly 50 percent. Its noise-processing algorithm has also been upgraded to capture beautiful, fine-gradation images at higher sensitivities. A combination of an advanced scene analysis system and new image-processing functions helps improve the accuracy and reliability of image reproduction."
My understanding is that the new image accelerator sits between the sensor module and the PRIME engine. No doubt it's doing further noise reduction, and some of us might subsequently (and quite validly) decide that it's going too far, whilst others will like it. But my point is, this is merely an additional step in an existing process of RAW "cooking" - and hence my assertion that RAW isn't exactly "raw". Maybe we could call it "par-boiled" :p
|
