|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-21-2018, 06:13 AM
|
| |
I don't have a horse in this race, however, some observations. This is pixelpeeping on quite high level and I notice that I can't see any difference on most of my screens, just on my imaging monitor.
I am afraid that this is running more into a principal discussion with those seeking the 'purity' of raw files and those happy with the results of clean high ISO.
I am pretty sure that any subtle effect would not be noticed at all by 99% of photographers. AFAIK no one has described this with the KP using the same processing engine, but there just seems to be agreement that it's IQ is outstanding in real life! But I'm sure we will run into arguments with the K-1, just because it can be well compared to the original version. I just hope some contextual sanity keeps on top. I don't mean it offensive, but a narrative that is once established in a forum (and here it seems to be a finnish forum) is gonna go on for ever, even if the evaluation of it's basis might have went on and changed the situation.
Saying that, I think that the OP's work is stunning, and in most cases I'm happy if tools are properly tested, if only that I dont have to go this route and destroy my equipment to know it's limits.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-18-2018, 03:44 AM
|
| |
I don't see your claims supported at all. The first link has different information in the images than you give, ISO800 left, ISO3200 right. The image look slightly different, but there is a difference in the cropped area. The left seems to have more contrast/higher acutance, but at full view I can not identifie a single pixel of information that would not be present at the right image. Sometimes higher noise with higher acutance can also lead to the impression of higher sharpness, but there is not more information, only artefacts.
I guess you understand if people are critical to such claims without evidence, from a user with a do dozen posts, right?
|
