Reading mode: Light Dark

To Mark II or Not To Mark II? That is the Question!

Go to last post
M

MightyMike

Forum Pro
Messages
41,985
Solutions
25
Reaction score
9,682
Location
Brampton, CA
Well of course DPR produces a Pentax review and controversy follows, not saying the controversy isn't valid, but also not saying it is either, its just there!

So for me, I'd take any improvement in AF I can get, I may be able to get the best out of the system but I always want more. Then I saw the image quality comparisons and was shocked, I could see a detail difference at ISO400, I didn't even look at ISO200, however I also could see the noise improvement as well. At first this was too great a drop in IQ to warrant the upgrade (even though I know full well that in most cases even this difference in IQ won't be seen in a full photo and would barely be noticed at 100% with proper sharpening) Despite knowing full well it won't make a significant difference the upgrade was suddenly off my radar. Then I read a number of people pointing out the focus wasn't necessarily accurate and 2 different lenses were used and the lenses may not be perfect. If this is true then the original conclusion of not to upgrade gets thrown into the wind.

There I was ready to upgrade, then happy to save over $700 CAD by not upgrading and now maybe I just might upgrade as originally planned. All in just a few hours I might add. Its enough to drive a person mad!

Personally I don't think forced NR is the right way to go, especially when one could achieve similar results in post NR. However if future tests show the difference is less than it appears on DPR then upgrading is a no brainer. I have less than 2 weeks to decide and the upgrade has to be done quickly or I miss an airshow which would suck!

Your thoughts?

--
Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/[email protected]&thumbnails=
 
Last edited:
My read of the different capabilities focuses on AF on moving objects -- a real improvement, but still lacking vs. competition. But really better! That is enough for me. This is the one area that has been difficult to live with on my birding trips.

John
 
MightyMike said:
Well of course DPR produces a Pentax review and controversy follows, not saying the controversy isn't valid, but also not saying it is either, its just there!

So for me, I'd take any improvement in AF I can get, I may be able to get the best out of the system but I always want more. Then I saw the image quality comparisons and was shocked, I could see a detail difference at ISO400, I didn't even look at ISO200, however I also could see the noise improvement as well. At first this was too great a drop in IQ to warrant the upgrade (even though I know full well that in most cases even this difference in IQ won't be seen in a full photo and would barely be noticed at 100% with proper sharpening) Despite knowing full well it won't make a significant difference the upgrade was suddenly off my radar. Then I read a number of people pointing out the focus wasn't necessarily accurate and 2 different lenses were used and the lenses may not be perfect. If this is true then the original conclusion of not to upgrade gets thrown into the wind.

There I was ready to upgrade, then happy to save over $700 CAD by not upgrading and now maybe I just might upgrade as originally planned. All in just a few hours I might add. Its enough to drive a person mad!

Personally I don't think forced NR is the right way to go, especially when one could achieve similar results in post NR. However if future tests show the difference is less than it appears on DPR then upgrading is a no brainer. I have less than 2 weeks to decide and the upgrade has to be done quickly or I miss an airshow which would suck!

Your thoughts?

--
Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/[email protected]&thumbnails=
Click to expand...
Mike,

However, as KPM2 recently drew our attention to it, DPReview used the 77mm for the K1 and the 50mm f/2.8 for the K1 Mark II for their comparison. I thought they may have done that because Ricoh released these cameras with these lenses, but I could find no evidence of that. In any case this comparison that has so disturbed us all was done with two different lenses. I don't know, but it seems to me that one of the next questions we should ask is, could the difference in DPReview results be caused in part by the differences between these two lenses?

Lawrence
 
breeze_of_wind said:
My read of the different capabilities focuses on AF on moving objects -- a real improvement, but still lacking vs. competition. But really better! That is enough for me. This is the one area that has been difficult to live with on my birding trips.

John
Click to expand...
I am so looking forward to putting the AF through its paces, so many times someone will claim the AF is improved only for me to find there is no real difference, however I'm not most people as others like to point out and maybe a certain level of skill minimizes some of the visibility of the improvement.
 
Mike, suggest you calm down a bit. There are guys on PF Pixel peeping at X3 looking for evidence. So a bit of NR is happening using a bit of hardware. You would also be doing it manually using your software tool of choice. Which one is the best at NR BTW? ACR, DXO, RawTherapee? Any one of these can claim to be the best at a given time by a variable percentage but which one is actually the best really.

I would suggest that there will be a kick up to a certain extent, Pentax will issue firmware to allow more control of the accelerator and everyone will go back to sleep with an improved AF system (seems like it passed the bike test) and greater control over yet another Pentax only innovation.
 
Robbie Corrigan said:
Mike, suggest you calm down a bit. There are guys on PF Pixel peeping at X3 looking for evidence. So a bit of NR is happening using a bit of hardware. You would also be doing it manually using your software tool of choice. Which one is the best at NR BTW? ACR, DXO, RawTherapee? Any one of these can claim to be the best at a given time by a variable percentage but which one is actually the best really.

I would suggest that there will be a kick up to a certain extent, Pentax will issue firmware to allow more control of the accelerator and everyone will go back to sleep with an improved AF system (seems like it passed the bike test) and greater control over yet another Pentax only innovation.
Click to expand...
This entire Review is just a bunch of meaningless noise. None of this supposed loss of detail will be distinguishable by an ordinary viewer at normal viewing distance at standard print size. Only Andy Warhol views the world at 400% magnification. The question is, do I want a decent RAW at ISO 12800 that I can work with in Post, or do I want nothing at all? Can I shoot at 3200 instead of 6400 and get a clean file?

I’m still doing the Heart Transplant.
 
Historicity said:
Mike,

However, as KPM2 recently drew our attention to it, DPReview used the 77mm for the K1 and the 50mm f/2.8 for the K1 Mark II for their comparison. I thought they may have done that because Ricoh released these cameras with these lenses, but I could find no evidence of that. In any case this comparison that has so disturbed us all was done with two different lenses. I don't know, but it seems to me that one of the next questions we should ask is, could the difference in DPReview results be caused in part by the differences between these two lenses?
Click to expand...
Lawrence,

There were 4 new lenses made for the original K-1: 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, and 28-105. There have been NONE since then, everything else is older. The 77 even dates back from film days, except for a minor upgrade to HD coating.

I thought cameras were generally tested with 50mm lenses, so the original K-1 would be the odd one. But when an obvious lens flaw presents itself you should stop testing and get a replacement.
 
silversalts said:
This entire Review is just a bunch of meaningless noise. None of this supposed loss of detail will be distinguishable by an ordinary viewer at normal viewing distance at standard print size. Only Andy Warhol views the world at 400% magnification. The question is, do I want a decent RAW at ISO 12800 that I can work with in Post, or do I want nothing at all? Can I shoot at 3200 instead of 6400 and get a clean file?
Click to expand...
Since you're going to be doing post anyway, why would you not want a selection of high-powered software to choose from for de-noising? Anything that's being done in-camera can certainly be done better after the fact.

I think it's time to go back to the original definition of RAW: a pure unadulterated dump from the sensor. Go ahead and cook the JPEGs, that's normal and expected, but leave the RAWs alone!
 
Mark Ransom said:
silversalts said:
This entire Review is just a bunch of meaningless noise. None of this supposed loss of detail will be distinguishable by an ordinary viewer at normal viewing distance at standard print size. Only Andy Warhol views the world at 400% magnification. The question is, do I want a decent RAW at ISO 12800 that I can work with in Post, or do I want nothing at all? Can I shoot at 3200 instead of 6400 and get a clean file?
Click to expand...
Since you're going to be doing post anyway, why would you not want a selection of high-powered software to choose from for de-noising? Anything that's being done in-camera can certainly be done better after the fact.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons why I like to use NR outside of the camera and after the fact is that what NR and how much to use is selective on the subject you are shooting and how you process the raw files.

The NR setting I use on one photo is very different than the one I use on another this is why there is lots of options when setting NR after the fact.
Mark Ransom said:
I think it's time to go back to the original definition of RAW: a pure unadulterated dump from the sensor. Go ahead and cook the JPEGs, that's normal and expected, but leave the RAWs alone!
Click to expand...
 
Robbie Corrigan said:
Mike, suggest you calm down a bit. There are guys on PF Pixel peeping at X3 looking for evidence. So a bit of NR is happening using a bit of hardware. You would also be doing it manually using your software tool of choice. Which one is the best at NR BTW? ACR, DXO, RawTherapee? Any one of these can claim to be the best at a given time by a variable percentage but which one is actually the best really.

I would suggest that there will be a kick up to a certain extent, Pentax will issue firmware to allow more control of the accelerator and everyone will go back to sleep with an improved AF system (seems like it passed the bike test) and greater control over yet another Pentax only innovation.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I came across as needing to calm down. Personally I doubt there will be a firmware update to reduce the NR on the accelerator but I think I've convinced myself the difference in detail is negligible. I don't think we can call it a Pentax only invention there are plenty of other brands that use multiple processors in their cameras.
 
Mark Ransom said:
Historicity said:
Mike,

However, as KPM2 recently drew our attention to it, DPReview used the 77mm for the K1 and the 50mm f/2.8 for the K1 Mark II for their comparison. I thought they may have done that because Ricoh released these cameras with these lenses, but I could find no evidence of that. In any case this comparison that has so disturbed us all was done with two different lenses. I don't know, but it seems to me that one of the next questions we should ask is, could the difference in DPReview results be caused in part by the differences between these two lenses?
Click to expand...
Lawrence,

There were 4 new lenses made for the original K-1: 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, and 28-105. There have been NONE since then, everything else is older. The 77 even dates back from film days, except for a minor upgrade to HD coating.

I thought cameras were generally tested with 50mm lenses, so the original K-1 would be the odd one. But when an obvious lens flaw presents itself you should stop testing and get a replacement.
Click to expand...
You forgot the DFA*150-450
 
Wait for a firmware update to allow user disabling of the RAW noise reduction. This was a colossal blunder on Ricoh's part, and my guess is they are already feeling the reverberations of that decision. If Ricoh is not capable of producing a *real* upgrade to an already decent camera, they should not have bothered.
 
Hello MightyMike

The DP text push us to see there result-conclusion, but I see a total other result: for me the K1 II RAW files looks so much better at ISO 3200 or 6400 and here they don't loose the details. Look at the black parts, the color charts, the letters and so on. I even can not get such a good result of the K1 at the ISO 12800 RAW, when I matched the noise look of the K1 picture to the K1 II picture. After my PP in Lightroom 3.7 the K1 picture looks less detailed as the K1 II picture. Maybe take more time to compare the results and maybe you change your mind than.

BTW: there skin tone conclusion is worth for nothing: the 4-pictures are not the same...look at the shoulder of the right upper picture....you see more of it. The other pictures are different too, so when you compare them, you compare different prints !!!

best regards KPM2
 
Last edited:
Joseph Tainter said:
Mike, a review over at Pentax Forums is showing the same result:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/hands-on-reviews/k-1-ii-vs-k-1-noise-image-quality.html

Joe
Click to expand...
Had a quick look at the noise/detail comparisons, Gotta say they aren't the same as DPR, however that first darkly exposed in the shade image of the plant is a poor subject for such a test... 2 second exposure??? even with the lightest breeze that could effect the results. Give us something well lit from the side for maximum contrast not zero contrast and the faintest details, thats just a recipe of crappy results regardless of the camera or lens.
 
Better AF than k1.

DPS file is better than the standard file.

Both for me are enough to upgrade .

Don't forget the camera has an amazing sensor and it beats competitors considering the IQ even the baked raw.
 
Wait for IR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top