Anyone prefers K-1 over the K-1 II?

Hello everyone,

Hope you are well and safe.

I was looking at the K-1 Mark II and was checking the dpreview where it says K-1 II built-in accelerator bakes noise reduction in RAW files, and it can't be turned off. Just wondering how good or bad that is, and does anyone prefer the K-1 over the K-1 Mark II because of this reason?

I want to get a K-1 with the new 85mm F1.4 when it becomes available, hence my research on the K-1 series. Please share your experience and what do you think about them.

Many thanks.

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hope you are well and safe.

I was looking at the K-1 Mark II and was checking the dpreview where it says K-1 II built-in accelerator bakes noise reduction in RAW files, and it can't be turned off. Just wondering how good or bad that is, and does anyone prefer the K-1 over the K-1 Mark II because of this reason?

There are people who prefer the K-1 over the K-1 II just because they know the accelerator is there.

There might be people who prefer the K-1 over the K-1 II after carefully investigating the images produced with both cameras.

I, OTOH, I did my investigation and decided to upgrade the K-1 to the K-1 II.

I want to get a K-1 with the new 85mm F1.4 when it becomes available, hence my research on the K-1 series. Please share your experience and what do you think about them.

In any case, the differences are minor.

Many thanks.

Alex

I had k1 .sold it later when I bought d750 but I missed the IQ of k1 then I bought k1ii. I really like it I couldn't find any difference in IQ between both but k1ii was more responsive than k1 when talking about af. It is more responsive with dfa*50mm.

I prefer the K-1 simply because that's the one I have. When using it, I never think "oh, if only...".

I didn't do the K-1 mk II upgrade, because I don't think the miniscular difference was worth it. Hand held pixel shift can be done in post, and I have never muttered about the AF capabilities of my K-1. If money wasn't an issue, I wouldn't hesitate to get a mk II as a second (or first) body. But unfortunately money is an issue for me, as for most other people, and for now the K5 serves well as that second body.

Bottom line: I wouldn't buy a K-1 mk II before a K-1 if the price difference was notable. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a K-1 if the price was significantly lower than for the K-1 mkII. In Sweden there were some offers for new, unused K-1 bodies a month or two ago (circa 1000 USD) from two different retailers, and that price is quite a bargain for what you get.

Kjell

Mr Garibaldi wrote:

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hope you are well and safe.

I was looking at the K-1 Mark II and was checking the dpreview where it says K-1 II built-in accelerator bakes noise reduction in RAW files, and it can't be turned off. Just wondering how good or bad that is, and does anyone prefer the K-1 over the K-1 Mark II because of this reason?

I want to get a K-1 with the new 85mm F1.4 when it becomes available, hence my research on the K-1 series. Please share your experience and what do you think about them.

Many thanks.

The K1II is something of an improvement over the K1. Don't worry about what the natterers say about the accelerator chip and "baked in noise reduction". Ricoh has a better idea of what they are doing than people who post stuff to internet forums.

I've seen side by side comparisons, the K1II at high ISO has better detail with less noise than the K1, and at low ISO there is no "baked in noise reduction".

As an aside, most manufacturers, especially mirrorless, are baking in some sort of correction in their raw files. Usually it's lens correction to compensate for excessive distortion.

Having seen the MTF graphs for the D FA* 85/1.4, it is close to perfect. It's MTF is significantly better than that of the Zeiss Otis 85/1.4.

Thank you everyone for your input. I too, might be able to get the K-1 for a significantly lower price than the K1 II. The lens really caught my eye, and I haven't checked the MTF charts yet, but what you are saying is very tempting. Thank you. I'm going to go check the MTF specs now.

Never ever considered to "upgrade" and really glad that K-1 was available when I bought it. Mark II is probably the biggest Pentax fail in its digital era for now. Five hundred from vague AF performance improvement and the rest is just software tweaking for convenience which you cannot even turn off. It could be a better offer, if you can tweak noise reduction, turn it off and at the same time your shutter count is very high. They will replace the shutter then. That is the biggest benefit.

I decided at the time not to make the upgrade - I dont think there was ever much improvement shown.

I think you will be well served by either model. I chose to not upgrade mine when the offer was made, but many others have been happy with the changes.

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hope you are well and safe.

I was looking at the K-1 Mark II and was checking the dpreview where it says K-1 II built-in accelerator bakes noise reduction in RAW files, and it can't be turned off. Just wondering how good or bad that is, and does anyone prefer the K-1 over the K-1 Mark II because of this reason?

I want to get a K-1 with the new 85mm F1.4 when it becomes available, hence my research on the K-1 series. Please share your experience and what do you think about them.

Many thanks.

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hope you are well and safe.

I was looking at the K-1 Mark II and was checking the dpreview where it says K-1 II built-in accelerator bakes noise reduction in RAW files, and it can't be turned off. Just wondering how good or bad that is, and does anyone prefer the K-1 over the K-1 Mark II because of this reason?

I upgraded my K1 to K1ii.

Imho, the difference in AF-C is significant, the K1ii can track.

It's also a bit more responsive all over.

High ISO is so good anyway, but i prefer high-ISO K1ii files over the k1, the color noise is much better controlled on the K1ii. K1 has a little more detail, but that's only visible when pixel peepeing. When you look at the entire picture, i like K1ii better.

I want to get a K-1 with the new 85mm F1.4 when it becomes available, hence my research on the K-1 series. Please share your experience and what do you think about them.

The 85 is not out yet, but i'm guessing the first user reviews won't take long. I received a pre-order notification, but i'm not sure i'll spring for it yet. I have the 77 and 50/1.2...

I can say that I'm very impressed with the modern Pentax glass i have (15-30, 24-70, 150-450) none of which a star lenses.. The 85 must be something special.

Many thanks.

Fotoni wrote:

Five hundred from vague AF performance improvement and the rest is just software tweaking for convenience which you cannot even turn off.

Nonsense. The upgrade option - your choice if you do it or not - was unprecedented, nowhere else can you send your camera and receive it transformed into the next model. Ricoh Imaging deserves kudos for that.

500 was reasonable; as it implies changing the mainboard, update the software and perform various calibrations in service. Services are expensive.

And the demand was so great they had to extend the time limit.

Alex

I would do the opposite if I am you unless you’re getting K1 for around $1k USD and don’t mind about auto focus speed.

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hope you are well and safe.

I was looking at the K-1 Mark II and was checking the dpreview where it says K-1 II built-in accelerator bakes noise reduction in RAW files, and it can't be turned off. Just wondering how good or bad that is, and does anyone prefer the K-1 over the K-1 Mark II because of this reason?

I want to get a K-1 with the new 85mm F1.4 when it becomes available, hence my research on the K-1 series. Please share your experience and what do you think about them.

Many thanks.

As a former K1 shooter, if that new 85 does focus better I might buy a used K1.

The K1 is already excellent at high ISO, so if you need NR simply apply it in PP.  The reason why I might get another one is for straight outdoor portraits so don’t need the version “II”.

Im a straight AF-S shooter and for some strange reason Ricoh did zero AF improvement there.  Personally I found that board swap completely pointless.  At least for the way I shoot and I don’t shoot darkness.  Maybe some people do so the new board might make some differennce.

The other thing people should mention to you is that the K1II oddly decreased in battery juice.  That doesn’t work for me either because I shoot a lot.

In my case I judged the upgrade to not be worth it for 2 reasons. I am fully capable of shooting action with a camera that has slower AF or even no AF. Plus my second system is Canon and there is no way Pentax is going to get their AF up to the level of Canon, not in my lifetime for sure. I like Pentax for its rendering not its speed.

Kent Gittings

Fotoni wrote:

Never ever considered to "upgrade" and really glad that K-1 was available when I bought it. Mark II is probably the biggest Pentax fail in its digital era for now. Five hundred from vague AF performance improvement and the rest is just software tweaking for convenience which you cannot even turn off. It could be a better offer, if you can tweak noise reduction, turn it off and at the same time your shutter count is very high. They will replace the shutter then. That is the biggest benefit.

The Pentax K-1 Mark II is a fantastic camera!  I'm sure glad I bought it.

Indeed.....and for many other reasons as well. Canon will be Canon, but not in my house.

KentG wrote:

In my case I judged the upgrade to not be worth it for 2 reasons. I am fully capable of shooting action with a camera that has slower AF or even no AF. Plus my second system is Canon and there is no way Pentax is going to get their AF up to the level of Canon, not in my lifetime for sure. I like Pentax for its rendering not its speed.

Kent Gittings