K1 in artificial light

I've been wondering about my K1 purchase. It's OK, but I've not been sure about any improvement over my Panasonic GH4 at low ISOs. Not unhappy, but unsure.

This evening I took a series of photos of my latest guitar to send to my customer. I took a series with the K1 and a similar series with the GH4.

Hard to say exactly what the difference was, but the only GH4 shot I used was one where the K1 shot was fuzzy because I'd taken it off the tripod and the shutter speed was much too low. The K1 shots were better, including when downsized to the same file size.

Here are a couple of the K1 shots. As always with images on Dpreview, they're best seen on my gallery in 'original size'.


12 string guitar front


12 string guitar back

Incidentally, the GH4 autofocus was like lightening compared with the K1 autofocus in live view. Not a problem in this situation, but not ideal.

I should add that I've done some landscape comparisons and found little or no difference. The landscape comparison images are also in my gallery.

--
Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

Where does the GH4 sensor stand in relation to the EPL-6 ?

I know the E-PL6 is an older camera but the 16 MP sensor has been around for a while with few tweaks here and there. I believe only a few cameras have the newer 20 MP sensor.

I ask because I have the EP-L6 and a K-5 and feel I am able to detect a difference between the two. The K-1 is no better than the K-5 and, in most practical senses, worse. Have you compared the 4/3 sensor to the APS-C ?

Tan68 said:

. The K-1 is no better than the K-5 and, in most practical senses, worse. Have you compared the 4/3 sensor to the APS-C ?

Click to expand...

This is an interesting claim. Can you give more infomation?

No, I have only the GH4 and the K1. I compared the GH4 with a 16 mp Fuji and was unimpressed by the Fuji.

If you don't see much of a difference then you likely don't need it. Certainly shots like the guitar can be made with all sorts of cameras.

Not sure how to reply to your post... especially as you are using a tripod.

For me, I've certainly found a world of difference between APSC to FF and then a big step up again from my 16MP Df to the 36MP K1.

I guess if it isn't working for you then is the Panasonic enough for your requirements?

Are you shooting RAW or JPEG?

The playing field in photography in 2017 is fairly even (including cameras on your phone)... they all work remarkably well! So the hard part is to choose the camera that works best for your needs... but also don't forget that the glass plays a significant part in the equation.

Lots of variables!!

jkrumm said:

If you don't see much of a difference then you likely don't need it. Certainly shots like the guitar can be made with all sorts of cameras.

Click to expand...

But he sees a difference between pictures of the guitar taken with either the GH4 or the K-1

He does see a difference when the two cameras are used to photograph other things.

Whether or not he needs the K-1 depends on whether he uses it most for product shots, like the guitar, or plans to use it for other things.

He said he found little to no difference in landscape photos, which has not been my experience (I have the EM1 and some good lenses).

I guess I'm a little confused about the post.

Where does the GH4 fall with respect to the EPL6 ?
I presume the GH4 has the 16 MP sensor as well...

Rens said:

Tan68 said:

. The K-1 is no better than the K-5 and, in most practical senses, worse. Have you compared the 4/3 sensor to the APS-C ?

Click to expand...

This is an interesting claim. Can you give more infomation?

Click to expand...

No.. I don't think I could substantiate my comment any better than I just did.. In some cases, the K-5 is better, don't you agree? In some cases, the GH4 is better or just as good, yes..?

As was just pointed out, if you don't see a difference, you have likely determined through practical experience the type of gear that suits you best. This is a good thing because it is not uncommon for people to spend time hopping systems and that can't be fun :^)

jkrumm said:

He said he found little to no difference in landscape photos, which has not been my experience (I have the EM1 and some good lenses).

I guess I'm a little confused about the post.

Click to expand...

That is because I left out a word

I intended to write : "He does [not] see a difference when the two cameras are used to photograph other things."

I do not see what is wrong with your observation. But I wonder what you would expect from a comparison like this?

In 2003 I was working with a 5MP Olympus C5050 bridge camera. It was a very nice bridge camera with a very good zoom lens.

For the photos I took at optimal conditions - let's say ISO100 (I think this camera had also ISO64), well controlled light and a tripod, an object without any problems regarding contrast range and take these photos at a resolution below that maximum resolution of that camera - I would not expect that any camera of the world (even today) would make a better job.

Today I work with the K1 for ma private use - and I like it very much. If I would use it in situations like I described above I would never expect any advantage of this camera over my old C5050 - but the K1 has its potential and features in situations away from these very easy standard situations:

In low light AF works precisely (it even surprised me! not fast but very precisely at almost no light conditions).

At high ISO I can go much further with my K1 than any camera I used before.

The additional MP offers great options for cropping if I use a good lens. You can use 100% crops without any problems!

For objects with high contrast tasks the sensor offers more than any sensor I had before (even K5).


But these advantages of K1 will only become visible in extreme conditions.

Taking into considerations techniques like in-camera HDR or Pixel Shift the actual Pentax cameras are within a different world. But only in situations where the circumstances support the need of these techniques. Downsizing the photo below 1 MP will not show the power of the K1.

What I like about the photos I get from my K1 is that there is almost no noise in the photos - and if there is some it can be removed very easily. DxO became almost worthless for me as you hardly can improve a RAW output that is nearly perfect. So I went back to lightroom as it offers a little bit more sensitive fine tuning.

As a conclusion: If you want to take 1MP photos exclusively take a camera that gives you 1MP as output. Every expert on graphics will give you this recommendation as every downsizing will effect the signal and add some adverse effects.

A K1 or any more sophisticated camera will be a waste of money for you and you will carry with you a heavy load you could avoid by simply taking your smartphone for photography.

Best regards

Holger

Rens said:

I've been wondering about my K1 purchase. It's OK, but I've not been sure about any improvement over my Panasonic GH4 at low ISOs. Not unhappy, but unsure.

Click to expand...

DOF control, resolution and DR are the advantages. At base ISO, every camera is capable of good results nowadays.

Rens said:

This evening I took a series of photos of my latest guitar to send to my customer. I took a series with the K1 and a similar series with the GH4.

Hard to say exactly what the difference was, but the only GH4 shot I used was one where the K1 shot was fuzzy because I'd taken it off the tripod and the shutter speed was much too low. The K1 shots were better, including when downsized to the same file size.

Here are a couple of the K1 shots. As always with images on Dpreview, they're best seen on my gallery in 'original size'.


12 string guitar front


12 string guitar back

Incidentally, the GH4 autofocus was like lightening compared with the K1 autofocus in live view. Not a problem in this situation, but not ideal.

Click to expand...

LV is not the K-1's primary focus method... Luckily the guitar wasn't on the move! Beautiful guitar btw!

Rens said:

I should add that I've done some landscape comparisons and found little or no difference. The landscape comparison images are also in my gallery.

Click to expand...

There's not much one can say with 1500 pixel-long images... But you've got to shoot the K-1 at f/8 if you shoot the GH4 at f/4, to get similar DOF. Of the 2 images you posted, the GH4 is the better one, more DOF, horizon seems more level, lens seems less distorted.

Rens said:

--
Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

Click to expand...

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Pentaxian with chronic LBA since 1997
Corfu, Greece
N.B. All my images are protected by Copyright

miles green said:

DOF control, resolution and DR are the advantages. At base ISO, every camera is capable of good results nowadays.

Click to expand...

Yes, just what I'm saying. At higher ISOs the GH4 IQ falls apart in my view.

miles green said:

miles green said:

Incidentally, the GH4 autofocus was like lightening compared with the K1 autofocus in live view. Not a problem in this situation, but not ideal.

Click to expand...

LV is not the K-1's primary focus method... Luckily the guitar wasn't on the move!

Click to expand...

Clearly not, but said to be faster than the other FF camera I was considering, the Nikon D750, whose LV AF must be truly glacial. I like using LV a lot, but can live with the K1's LV AF.

miles green said:

Beautiful guitar btw!

Click to expand...

Thank you.

miles green said:

miles green said:

I should add that I've done some landscape comparisons and found little or no difference. The landscape comparison images are also in my gallery.

Click to expand...

There's not much one can say with 1500 pixel-long images... But you've got to shoot the K-1 at f/8 if you shoot the GH4 at f/4, to get similar DOF. Of the 2 images you posted, the GH4 is the better one, more DOF, horizon seems more level, lens seems less distorted.

Click to expand...

This wasn't really fair to the K1, as the only lens I had at that time was a Tamron 17-35; sharp in the centre but soft at the edges and corners, and quite distorted. And of course, f8 would have given a better DOF comparison, only when I got home did I see I hadn't adjusted. As for the horizon, the K1 was accurate as shown by the level indicator, so it could be the GH4 horizon was wrong.

But I've done other (less pretty) tests with both cameras and still see very little difference in good conditions. Just at base ISO, of course.

This forum is much less catty than others I've been on in the past, and it wasn't my intention to ruffle feathers. But just because we use a particular camera system doesn't mean we have to love everything about it or maintain it's greatly better than other systems. It's perfectly possible, desirable in fact, to like something while appreciating its weaker as well as stronger points.

My original post wasn't trying to say anything other than I was pleased that the K1 did well shooting my latest guitar.

Best wishes to all,

Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

Rens said:

miles green said:

DOF control, resolution and DR are the advantages. At base ISO, every camera is capable of good results nowadays.

Click to expand...

Yes, just what I'm saying. At higher ISOs the GH4 IQ falls apart in my view.

Rens said:

Rens said:

Incidentally, the GH4 autofocus was like lightening compared with the K1 autofocus in live view. Not a problem in this situation, but not ideal.

Click to expand...

LV is not the K-1's primary focus method... Luckily the guitar wasn't on the move!

Click to expand...

Clearly not, but said to be faster than the other FF camera I was considering, the Nikon D750, whose LV AF must be truly glacial. I like using LV a lot, but can live with the K1's LV AF.

Click to expand...

yes, i was kidding a bit of course... I'm fine with it too, i use it and the flippy screen much more than i though i would.

Rens said:

Rens said:

Beautiful guitar btw!

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Rens said:

Rens said:

I should add that I've done some landscape comparisons and found little or no difference. The landscape comparison images are also in my gallery.

Click to expand...

There's not much one can say with 1500 pixel-long images... But you've got to shoot the K-1 at f/8 if you shoot the GH4 at f/4, to get similar DOF. Of the 2 images you posted, the GH4 is the better one, more DOF, horizon seems more level, lens seems less distorted.

Click to expand...

This wasn't really fair to the K1, as the only lens I had at that time was a Tamron 17-35; sharp in the centre but soft at the edges and corners, and quite distorted. And of course, f8 would have given a better DOF comparison, only when I got home did I see I hadn't adjusted. As for the horizon, the K1 was accurate as shown by the level indicator, so it could be the GH4 horizon was wrong.

But I've done other (less pretty) tests with both cameras and still see very little difference in good conditions. Just at base ISO, of course.

This forum is much less catty than others I've been on in the past, and it wasn't my intention to ruffle feathers. But just because we use a particular camera system doesn't mean we have to love everything about it or maintain it's greatly better than other systems. It's perfectly possible, desirable in fact, to like something while appreciating its weaker as well as stronger points.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

Rens said:

My original post wasn't trying to say anything other than I was pleased that the K1 did so well shooting my guitar.

Click to expand...

I understand where you come from and it's nice to hear from someone with experience with high-end mirrorless cameras.

What is great about the K-1 is that it gives excellent results as a casual walk-around camera, without a tripod, after dark, indoors, from strange angles, and you don't have to slow your family/friends down: 5-stops of SR, leveling, and extra dial and a flippy screen make things easier and faster. Yet the K-1 urges me to slow down, pay attention, use the tripod, filters, composition adjustment, pixel-shift or at least ES... Put a quality lens in front of it, and take your time, and the K-1 rewards you with exceptional results (as i'm sure you noticed photographing the guitar).

Rens said:

Best wishes to all,

Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

Click to expand...

Regards,

Miles