K1 II and Best cameras for landscape photography in 2021 article

I'm not a great believer in pixel shift. It's great for shooting brick walls when you're using a tripod. But in real life? Harder to justify.

First you need a tripod. Second you need the subject not to move. No trees or vegetation blowing in the wind. No water. Unless you layer the files later and scrub out the relevant areas of three of the shifted images, thus nullifying the pixel shift effect.

People say pixel shift is good for high-ISO images. But again, if you have a tripod and the subject's not moving, just lower the ISO duh.

I've had a k3 ii for years and never used pixel shift except as an experiment the first day I had the camera.

So to me pixel shift isn't a factor in appraising Pentaxes as landscape cameras. There are other advantages, mind – light weight, robustness, huge choice of lenses because MF is fine for landscape, et cetera.

Pixel shift useful for studio at base ISO I guess.

Paul

DuncanM1 wrote:

I downloaded the test images for the K1 II and the Nikon Z7II and the Pentax in pixel shift mode is just completely superior and yet the Nikon gets the nod as best camera? What gives? I can understand that for action shots the Nikon might be better, but for landscape resolution is king and the Pentax is far, far superior.

DuncanM1 wrote:

I downloaded the test images for the K1 II and the Nikon Z7II and the Pentax in pixel shift mode is just completely superior and yet the Nikon gets the nod as best camera? What gives? I can understand that for action shots the Nikon might be better, but for landscape resolution is king and the Pentax is far, far superior.

And noting the weakness of Nikon AF and dismissing it as not relevant to landscape, whilst downgrading Pentax because of the AF? There is no logical explanation for this.

I've been using Pentax cameras for landscape ever since the MZ5n (MZ-S, K20, K5 & KP) and never had issues with AF for landscape and similar static subjects.

Paul_R_H wrote:

I'm not a great believer in pixel shift. It's great for shooting brick walls when you're using a tripod. But in real life? Harder to justify.

It's also great for shooting still lives, buildings and interiors without moving people and landscape on very still days.

First you need a tripod.

Obviously but most landscape photographers just use tripods as a matter of course.

Second you need the subject not to move. No trees or vegetation blowing in the wind. No water. Unless you layer the files later and scrub out the relevant areas of three of the shifted images, thus nullifying the pixel shift effect.

People say pixel shift is good for high-ISO images. But again, if you have a tripod and the subject's not moving, just lower the ISO duh.

I've had a k3 ii for years and never used pixel shift except as an experiment the first day I had the camera.

That is a personal experience and that's fine but remember, it only applies to your choices, other people might well have different requirements and a different experience.

So to me pixel shift isn't a factor in appraising Pentaxes as landscape cameras. There are other advantages, mind – light weight, robustness, huge choice of lenses because MF is fine for landscape, et cetera.

Pixel shift useful for studio at base ISO I guess.

Paul

DuncanM1 wrote:

I downloaded the test images for the K1 II and the Nikon Z7II and the Pentax in pixel shift mode is just completely superior and yet the Nikon gets the nod as best camera? What gives? I can understand that for action shots the Nikon might be better, but for landscape resolution is king and the Pentax is far, far superior.

Phil A Martin wrote:

Paul_R_H wrote:

I'm not a great believer in pixel shift. It's great for shooting brick walls when you're using a tripod. But in real life? Harder to justify.

It's also great for shooting still lives, buildings and interiors without moving people and landscape on very still days.

Yes, by 'studio' at the end of my comment I guess I should have said 'still life'. But I thought this conversation was about landscape. Agree with you on architectural work too. I should have remembered that architecture falls, for many, into the general category of landscape.

First you need a tripod.

Obviously but most landscape photographers just use tripods as a matter of course.

Second you need the subject not to move. No trees or vegetation blowing in the wind. No water. Unless you layer the files later and scrub out the relevant areas of three of the shifted images, thus nullifying the pixel shift effect.

People say pixel shift is good for high-ISO images. But again, if you have a tripod and the subject's not moving, just lower the ISO duh.

I've had a k3 ii for years and never used pixel shift except as an experiment the first day I had the camera.

That is a personal experience and that's fine but remember, it only applies to your choices, other people might well have different requirements and a different experience.

Do you mean about the ISO? I might have misunderstood how pixel shift is useful at higher ISO. Didn't mean to be dismissive. Perhaps you would put me straight.

Thanks

Paul

So to me pixel shift isn't a factor in appraising Pentaxes as landscape cameras. There are other advantages, mind – light weight, robustness, huge choice of lenses because MF is fine for landscape, et cetera.

Pixel shift useful for studio at base ISO I guess.

Paul

egk4260 wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

DuncanM1 wrote:

I downloaded the test images for the K1 II and the Nikon Z7II and the Pentax in pixel shift mode is just completely superior and yet the Nikon gets the nod as best camera? What gives? I can understand that for action shots the Nikon might be better, but for landscape resolution is king and the Pentax is far, far superior.

And noting the weakness of Nikon AF and dismissing it as not relevant to landscape, whilst downgrading Pentax because of the AF? There is no logical explanation for this.

I've been using Pentax cameras for landscape ever since the MZ5n (MZ-S, K20, K5 & KP) and never had issues with AF for landscape and similar static subjects.

As I read it your perceptions seem to differ with what they actually stated:

K1-III: "Limited AF point coverage, Unreliable AF tracking"

"The camera's 33 autofocus points are concentrated toward the center of the frame, and is looking limited by modern standards. Likewise AF tracking lags behind the competition in terms of reliability. The K-1 II can focus in very low light, down to -3EV, but AF points barely light up making it difficult to know what you’re focusing on."

Z7: "Autofocus interface a bit clunky"

"Autofocus performance is generally good, and face/eye AF continues to be improved with firmware updates. The interface isn't as refined as it could be, and you'll have to decide whether to use subject tracking, face detection or a simpler AF area mode, which is automatic on some of its rivals. The results tend to be very good, though."

As I said, I've never had any issues with AF for landscape photography, with any Pentax camera going all the way back to the MZ5n.

JeremieB wrote:

Why wouldn't it be useful for landscape at base ISO, if nothing moves (or even, if some parts move, as there's a mode for this) ?

With PSR you have more DR and better details at any ISO level. Both seem fine for landscape as far as I know.

The other day I had the comparison directly at hand, and PS would win by far, taken against a shot without. Talking about this one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187518201@N02/51175488314/in/album-72157715868735698/

Found the version with PS better already with viewing per 100% in comparison (before upload), there is something in the acuity (not talking about resolution then), which the version without PS would not deliver in this case. Made the difference here for the result being somehow useful vs. not because of missing fine details.

(Btw. RawTherapee, which is used here, has fine support for PS, but normally I try to avoid such amassing of data, which PS brings along.)

The oxen in the rain didn't move during the 4 shots. Talking about stills here.

On different occasion I had by chance taken an image of a train passing by, having forgotten to switch PS off, which was perfect then, as only one of the takes was useful, the other ones where blown-up in wrong timing. With RawTherapee one may ignore the other takes when only one is to survive.

Gary Martin wrote:

All the cameras mentioned are strong contenders, and the reason they chose the Nikon is simple: they prefer the DR advantage of an ISO64 setting over the value of pixel-shift. That would be my opinion as well, although the K-1 has more than enough dynamic range for my needs as is. Your Mileage May Vary.

Let me guess it's more simple than that, journalism is about le jour, views of the day, so it's leaving out underlying phenomenons if those have been lost in coarse of the flow of short-living thoughts of the day.

I'm thinking here of having been for many years a happy user of the Foveon cameras, which makes the point here for the phenomenons, which comes back with pixel shifting, thanks to the vibrating sensor.

The difference is to have one pixel worth of reality with each pixel of the image. Principle of Bayer instead is a principle of guessing in fine detail, which pixel belongs to which colour out of quadruples. Foveon doesn't have this software guessing by principle, so it makes for astonishing fine images, but one pays with not that much sensitivity of the sensor plus slightly reduced dynamics (and Sigma seems for now to have stepped back in continuation, with its new series of cameras).

Maybe better don't expect jour-nalists that much to overlook things beyond of those of the day when scratching at phenomenons for which not a sales instance has invented wording of le jour for how to sell it.

I don't think, this advantage in acuity (to take this word for it, after having each one pixel for one pixel worth of reality) is related to dynamic range. That's for sure a different topic again. Within such acuity instead, advantage should be given in impression of a calm and steady representation, when software guesses for representation of fine details are set aside.

Ok, with the huge waste of resolution which is normal now, this is not much a difference any more. But in times of the 12 Mpix Bayers for sure it was. And still in case of doubt the 3x14 MPix Merrills seem to me to give more acuity than the K3, only K1 looks to me beyond of such guesses now.

egk4260 wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

egk4260 wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

DuncanM1 wrote:.........

And noting the weakness of Nikon AF and dismissing it as not relevant to landscape, whilst downgrading Pentax because of the AF? There is no logical explanation for this..........

As I read it your perceptions seem to differ with what they actually stated:

K1-III: "Limited AF point coverage, Unreliable AF tracking"

"The camera's 33 autofocus points are concentrated toward the center of the frame, and is looking limited by modern standards. Likewise AF tracking lags behind the competition in terms of reliability. The K-1 II can focus in very low light, down to -3EV, but AF points barely light up making it difficult to know what you’re focusing on."

Z7: "Autofocus interface a bit clunky"

"Autofocus performance is generally good, and face/eye AF continues to be improved with firmware updates. The interface isn't as refined as it could be, and you'll have to decide whether to use subject tracking, face detection or a simpler AF area mode, which is automatic on some of its rivals. The results tend to be very good, though."

As I said, I've never had any issues with AF for landscape photography, with any Pentax camera going all the way back to the MZ5n.

I guess you are correct in regards to still focus for landscapes.

Pardon me for being on topic but I thought this discussion was about the suitability of Pentax cameras for landscape photography.

But, kudos for an exceptionally artful dodge of actually responding to my post. Politics are certainly an option if the photography thing does not work out for you.:-) I narrowed the scope of my query by editing the text. Hope you have been able to enjoy your new camera.