|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-17-2018, 11:12 AM
|
| |
I've never used the DFA 50 Macro, but I have used the 100 and the 77 and have always felt that the 77 at F5.6 is about as sharp as possible. I'd put it up against glass from any manufacturer at that setting. I'm very surprised and still have doubts that the DFA 50 Macro is sharper in the center than the Limited; it just doesn't make sense given the design intentions with typical macro lenses vs. other lenses (max resolution in center for Limited, corner to corner emphasis for macros at the expense of a smidgen of resolution in the center).
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-12-2018, 10:53 AM
|
| |
Firmware v1.00 is final release firmware if they follow industry standards. Pre-release beta is labeled .98, .99, etc.
V1.01 is a firmware revision; an early one but a revision nonetheless. Again, if they followed standard software naming...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 08:11 AM
|
| |
I would like to see the option to select the ISO level that it kicks in. I’m also curious as to how the accelerator affects AF performance since it’s been implied that it plays a role somehow. My initial tests with my K-1 II and 24-70 lens have been very encouraging; the AF feels more responsive and “confident”. I’m not sure if this is measurable, but it feels faster than the K-1.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 09:29 AM
|
| |
DPR was never a bastion of scientific analysis, but was much more "measured" in the past (8+ years ago).
The site dropped in quality when Phil left and when they were purchased by Amazon.
They have kept up the appearance of being a technical resource, but are now driven primarily by clicks, ad revenue, and corporate ass kissing. Note the massive marketing campaign for the A7III and all of the glowing positive reviews after all of these websites, youtubers etc. were flown out to the swanky Sony event, fed fine food and drink, and canoodled with sexy models and celebrity photographers. Shockingly, a week or two after the event, the steady drumbeat of overwhelmingly positive reviews appeared all over the internet, DPR included. This is the world we live in unfortunately, and small companies like Pentax are like a gnat on the ass of a bull to these people.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 04:22 PM
|
| |
Yes, as I said literally on the next line of the quote you pulled. :)
I don't see a distinct detail advantage in RAW for either camera if we're speaking about unprocessed images. But the smoother and less splotchy color noise in the K-1 II images allow for less NR to be necessary and take to sharpening a bit better without looking overprocessed. Once you process both files, the K-1 II seems to have a (very) slight advantage at higher ISO values that grows as you crank it up.
At the end of the day, the differences are so minute that they have zero value in anyone's typical workflow for printing images. No one is making giant poster prints of test images from ISO 12800 files...at least, they shouldn't be! :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 10:49 AM
|
| |
Interestingly, the ISO 1600 image on the K-1 II looks sharper than the ISO 800 image in that spot you point out above.
So I think it might be a slight focusing error or de-centered lens.
It still matches the K-1 with a tiny bit of sharpening applied in post.
But there are also other areas of the image that seem to favor the K-1 II in the same ISO 800 comparison images.
The point is that the differences are more due to the use of 2 different lenses, each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses, faults, etc, and the camera settings than anything else. For areas with fine line detail, I like the rendering on the K-1 II much better since there is less false color to deal with in post; the usable result after processing is better out of the K-1 II, but in an admittedly minute sense.
At truly high ISO settings like 12800, the K-1 II is better at detail retention, with smoother looking files that respond much better to typical post-processing (sharpening, balancing, color noise reduction).
It's a close call but to alleviate concerns (for the record, I'm not one of the concerned individuals), Pentax should add a firmware setting to either greatly reduce or completely turn off the effect of the signal processor at ISO 12800 and below.
The second point I want to make is the concept of noise reduction as being viewed as a bad thing automatically, if the DPR review and most of the comments are to be taken at face value. I normally agree with this, but in this situation, the noise reduction is as a result of a hardware, not a software algorithm to smear away details. What do others feel about this? My feeling is that it's giving the photographer smoother images that respond slightly better to sharpening and need a lot less color noise reduction, which yields crisper images if you know what you're doing. I can't comment on people that just want to use JPGs straight out of the camera (don't get this at all), or just want to use some "automatic" RAW converter that decides how your images look for you (don't get this approach either).
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 08:05 PM
|
| |
No, I did not. But I did notice that fine details in the B&W areas of the test image were noticeably better on the K-1 Mk2.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 04:13 PM
|
| |
Sure, I'll have to see about that the next time I meet up with my buddy.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 01:02 PM
|
| |
Before and after sharpening in post, at high ISO (12800, 1600) I saw more fine details resolved on the K-1 II RAW files with the added benefit of noticeably reduced false color and color noise. I think the improvement is very subtle, but it's there to exploit if you are willing to post-process your RAW files, as any "serious" photographer is going to do.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 10:21 AM
|
| |
I completely disagree with the image quality assessment. I downloaded the RAW files at ISO 12800 and ISO 1600 for the K-1 and K-1 MkII and ran them both through Adobe Camera Raw at default settings, no sharpening, etc. and saved as 16 bit TIF files.
Ignoring the fact that a completely different lens was used (and this is a huge flaw in the test), the output from the K-1 Mk2 is cleaner while still retaining the same amount of detail.
Let's examine how images are used in real life, beyond the realm of theoretical internet arguments. The unprocessed RAW images from both cameras with all of the color moire evident are completely unusable. You can't present them to a client like that, so zooming in to 400% and peeping details is a little silly. The K-1 Mk2 images have a lot less false color evident while retaining excellent detail in most areas. They also appear to be lower contrast than the K-1 Mk1 images, probably due to the different lens much more than any difference in the camera itself.
The key thing is that after equalizing the contrast and brightness between the 2 cameras, I immediately prefer the K-1 Mk2 images due to the noticeably cleaner color output.
Additionally, if you then apply some tasteful color NR to eliminate the false color to both images and a bit of sharpening, the images can be made to look identical, with a very slight edge going to the K-1 Mk2. I say this while intentionally staying away from anything close to the edges of the test images since, again, a completely different lens was used which makes the entire comparison suspect.
Finally, I'm only speaking about RAW files here, I've never shot in JPG format on a DSLR and don't imagine any serious photographer ever does, but that's up to the individual to decide.
So, in conclusion (and I use that term with plenty of sarcasm here), in my opinion, the K-1 Mk2 appears to be an incremental image upgrade for RAW shooters with slightly but noticeably improved AF as well, as advertised.
My friend owns a K-1 and I tested the AF-S mode on both cameras using the same 24-70 lens (that I just purchased), and whatever Pentax did to the AF seems to have reduced that slight bit of hesitation noticeably. The AF "feels" better on the new camera and both of us agreed on this point. Again, it's a subtle but definitely noticeable improvement. This was done in good light, outdoors. We did not try in low light, but I intend to re-visit the AF when we meet up again.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 04:59 PM
|
| |
DPR is a dangerous site because they are masquerading as an impartial, technically proficient resource. But they appear to be extremely biased in their subjective conclusions, constantly "moving the goalposts" as they see fit in each review, etc. They are a bad joke to real photographers at this point, but the majority of people still see them as the end-all be-all resource, which is extremely sad.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 09:07 AM
|
| |
That's my hope as well. The AF points are a dull red- a bright green would be easier to see.
ISO 12800 looks really bad in the DPR results compared to the other FF cameras (including the K-1).
If you're going to apply some NR via the accelerator chip, it should be lot more gradual as you hit the higher ISOs, but currently the detail drop-off from 6400 to 12800 is huge and unacceptable. Pentax needs to fix that; let the user decide when and how much NR to apply.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 08:12 AM
|
| |
DPR is fully in the tank for Sony...
That said, I hope they can add a toggle to turn off the accelerator NR in a firmware update. I prefer to do my own noise reduction in post.
|
