Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade?

"Rishi was talking about "star eater on steroids", without taking any astrophoto image with the K-1 II. Those people say there's no such issue. Even "the problem" is not something they detected, they're just taking DPR's word for it"

This is a major letdown by DPREVIEW. If no testing was performed on astrophoto and still they claim that there would a 'star-eater' issue, that essentially shows DPREVIEW's credibility (or lack there of). I can't imagine anyone would make such statements without having adequate testing. Isn't that the basics of testing and results publication??

Look at his images, like this ISO 6400 one, at 100%.

I see cross-hatching & a grid pattern throughout the entire image - remnants of noise reduction. I've reached out to Ian to see what he thinks about this.

'Star Eater' is a by-product of hot pixel suppression, & only affects single pixel stars. It's been greatly mitigated in newer bodies, it's nowhere near the magnitude we initially saw, for example, when Ian published his original article. That's why some photographers are reporting they can barely even see its effects in real world astrophotography.

I find the noise reduction artifacts far more distracting than some single pixel stars that may or may not have been lowered in brightness, especially given the improvements to 'Star Eater' in the latest a7-bodies, as you can see here.

We'd take no issue if NR was an option.

If you look at 100-200%, you'll see the K-1 II both making up detail, and removing it, in chunks far greater than 1 pixel.

So we stand by our original comment, which was: "For now, astrophotographers in particular may want to avoid this camera since the baked-in Raw noise reduction may affect the rendition of starry skies at higher ISOs."

The K-1 is a better option in this regard.

"Manual exposure, 40 sec, f/5.6, ISO 12800". Not 6400.
I'm not in a hurry to see what you want us to see. This is a high ISO, long exposure image on which Adobe Lightroom applied noise reduction and sharpening and its own demosaicing algorithm. And isn't Lightroom's demosaicing somewhat prone to generating maze artifacts?
You're too quick to put it on the RAW NR, and to declare the K-1 II as a worse option without any comparative testing. That's not the scientific approach. That's confirmation bias. That's "no image was changed". Or "star eater on steroids", the same thing.

Ian has updated his assessment. In his words:

"However, the [noise reduction] issue does create that bizarre non-random grid pattern that’s visible under magnification. Astrophotographers hoping to stack multiple exposures should approach the K-1 Mark II with consideration of this issue and understand that the K-1 Mark II is not as good of a choice versus its older and cheaper predecessor, the original K-1.

I agree with DPReview’s assessment and I wish that manufacturers would stop trying to apply noise reducing techniques to RAW files."

'Too quick to put on the Raw NR'? 'Without any comparative testing'? On the contrary: we've seen this cross-hatching in two Pentax bodies, in older firmware Samsung cameras, & in JPEGs from cameras with poor NR. It's evident even in our studio scene: the K-P and the K-1 II, the two models that employ noise reduction. But not on the K-1, or any other camera in recent memory.

So, no, not 'confirmation bias', but a conclusion drawn from experience.

I see that Ian is making further updates and retracted the updates (the updates that he made after chatting with Rishi). Let us wait for his final response/results.

One thing to note here is - When Ian made his updates after chatting with Rishi, the same day Rishi posted that information here. I do not see that ‘enthusiasm’ From Rishi here when Ian retracted his updates kept the previous original score.

To me, these types of actions shows a less than innocent nature. These types of actions are keeping me away from visiting DPREVIEW more (They may not care).

Furthermore, moving vehicles are a very easy target. Very predictable and steady movement, and with only very small and very slow changes in the focussing, due to being far away. This is where even cameras are good (have a good keeper rate), which are 10 years behind competition in their AF capabilities.

The challenge are more erratic movements for things nearer to the camera. E.g. normal people photography, even though they don't move fast in terms of miles per hour, they are much faster than jets in terms of changes to the focusing. And much more erratic in their movements.

This is probably why no (relevant) people photographers use Pentax. Or no (relevant) wedding photographers. This would be absurdly rare. For normal hobbyist photography, the market share may still be between 1% and 0.1%. For wedding photography, it is probably more like between 0.01% and 0.001%.

But that's also due to flash system, lenses etcetera.

go go dpthoughts! hooray for trolling!!! let's hit 1Bn comments!

@dpthoughts, i was not aware you were a pentax fanboy... good for you

I'm ok with 6000 commend to considering we're almost 1/4 way there, :)

We equally love fanboys and crusaders...
Actually, we love all protected or endangered species...

Boy, this is fun...

You are not addressing my point, which is that dynamic "pixel shift" can work as a powerful image stabilizer. No amount of stacking is going to convert an image with heavy camera shake into a sharp one... Btw, you probably want to put the quotes around the "pixel shift" and not in "dynamic" ;)

"Good wide angle zooms are challenging to design and require good lens making skills, probably beyond what Ricoh could do."

Fujifilm's longest prime is 90mm. Apparently, making good, long telephotos requires lens making skills beyond what Fujifilm can do.

Sony full-frame mirrorless system does not have any native long telephoto primes either. Such lousy lens-makers, eh...

Pentax' FF DSLR system is two years old. Tell me how many lenses did Sony FE system have two years into its lifetime, and how big is Sony corp compared to Ricoh Imaging.

Hey! - where did my comment go? Random pruning now?

The denouncing isn't done the cheat the tests and lose details. It is done to hide the details of the DFA star 50mm lens coming. That lens could be so razor sharp that eye protection is required.

I doubt it until I see it :)
The K-1 Mk I and II tests revealed, that Pentax is not capable of designing prime lenses wich are sharp enough for 36MP, outside the very image center.

Not even their 50mm macro lens. For other manufacturers, such type of lens is extremely sharp throughout the entire frame.

So let's assume for now, that also the DFA 50mm will be just a weak "I wanna be a Sigma ART" clone.

Hopfully it will be better, because Sigma doesn't issue its recent ART lenses for Pentax FF, so Sigma can't fill the gaps. There's only one, the 35mm ART of 2012, available for Pentax. Whereas Canon sees 14 ART lenses by now, rather than just one.

We all need 14 lenses, that's well known. That's just the perfect provocative wording, always bending a bit and reality and giving it a degrading spin. Must be a job a new job to "animate" forums. 230 comments, always trashing anything to comment about, Pentax, Nikon, everything.

Funny thing about @dpthoughts and his crusade against Pentax fanboys. He is unknowingly really giving Pentax K1 mark II a boost in exposure, in a way getting folks' attention to Pentax. He is drawing folks' attention to this new offering from Pentax.....any exposure, positive or negative, is always good.

14 Sigma Art lenses. Besides many OEM ones, and Tamrons, and Tokinas ;-)
Probably we can't live without 100 or so lenses.

I never could understand the "need" to have some massive collection of available lenses for a particular system. What are your "needs" vs. "wants"? I can get by with 3 or 4 zooms to cover ultra wide angle to massive telephoto. Those are my "needs". My "want" would be a few good primes at useful focal lengths, spaced far enough apart to have noticeable differences in field of view. In native Pentax K-mount I can easily have 31mm, 43mm, 50mm, 77mm, and 100mm. These lenses are plenty sharp enough for the 36 MP sensor in my K-1. Then, just for "fun" - not a "need" or a "want" - I have a world of M42 lenses from classic SMC Takumars to Soviet lenses to whatever else. My eyes are wide open on those lenses. Some are soft and provide poor image quality. Others, like the Tak and my Helios, are really, really sharp. Seriously, you can make pretty big prints from them and not worry.

So, I have a hard time with people complaining about a lack of lens choice. It's there. Really, it is!

@6VQ5: "need"? You said "need"?
dpthoughts is not a Pentax user, so he doesn't "need" any Pentax lens. His "need" is exclusively to bash Pentax.

I am a Pentax user, and what I'm missing is a relatively compact, high quality ultra wide. Not bad enough to go and get a 15-30, forgetting the 'relatively compact' part, so it's more of a "want".
None of the Sigma Art lenses are that.

Well, FE lenses are meant to support high megapixel from at least 50mp. That's why they are huge. Sigma Art lenses are much bigger than FE lenses as a DSLR lens. On the other hand, both Canon and Nikon have fewer lenses which support high megapixel.

Ok, the glass is huge and high quality. But then, what's the point to shrink the camera to the point it has to be held with three fingers?

You have more options than DSLR. Unlike DSLR, mirrorless like A7 can use much smaller lenses. In that case, mirrorless has more advantages. Even DSLR use any pancake lenses, they are still big. What if you use Leica lenses? You can get benefits from it.

Also, a lot of people think that DSLR is quite big and heavy. Even professional photographers agree about this especially when they shoot for several hours continuously. For that case, mirrorless cameras have more choices whether they wanna use all expansive lenses or compact lenses. Meanwhile, DSLR don't have those choices. In these days, people prefer smaller camera body. If you dont like that, then you can use a battery grip or third party grip accessory.

Btw, 3rd gen is bigger than 1st gen and you never know if Sony decides to make them bigger in 4th gen. And you can carry more bodies.

Anyway, smaller bodies are better than bigger bodies.

It's like everything, there is an optimum size. Pentax DSLR are smaller than other DSLR. Here is the kind of comments we get from mirrorless users:
"Since using the XH1 I have hardly bothered with my beloved XT-2, for 3 reasons.
1) Better hand grip and balance with most lenses I use.
2) buttons! new back focus and customizing the rear Exp comp dial is a big plus for me.
3) IBIS Shutter! Image stabilizing and super quiet shutter is remarkable. Means every lens has now Image stabilizing."

It looks like smaller is not necessarily better. And the Pentax K1 and K1 II have the same size as an X-H1...

For Sony, there are big but state-of-art Sony G-Master or Sigma ART. Both are big and heavy, for those which need 40+ megapixels resolution.

Then there are the smaller normal Sony lenses (non-G-Master). These are more compact and more convenient than DSLR lenses. Especially standard to wide angles.

Or for example the new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I was surpised when I saw in videos, how small it is, despite its end-to-end f/2.8.

Or to be landscape hikers' dreams, there are really tiny ultra wide angles around for Sony full frame by now or soon, e.g. the Rokinon 12mm f/2, or Laowa 10-18mm f/4-5.6. Just impossible for DSLRs.

That's the good thing with mirrorless: it is hybrid. It's your choice, of you want to go big, or go small for your travel / hiking convenience / inconspicuousness for street & social (e.g. weddings).

With a hulky DSLR such as the K-1 and its even hulkier lenses, you are condemned to hulkiness and weight penalties in every situation.

So far, it is better to have a smaller body. That's why a lot of photographers moved to Sony. Petapixel already posted an article that Sony sold more than Nikon in USA.

Same size? Seriously? X-h1 is much thinner and lighter. DSLR will never have smaller and lighter body with high performance. Look how small a9 is compared to Canon 1dx mark 2 and Nikon D5.

Also there's this "battery grip" thing out recently. The more people learn about this invention, the more they'll understand its mitigating effects for handling very big lenses, regardless of the camera body size.

But the good thing about mirrorless will always be its hybridness. Just remove the battery grip, and get yourself some of the available small to tiny mirrorless mount full frame lenses, and in no time you have a system perfectly suitable for travel / hiking / street / candid people.

"So far, it is better to have a smaller body. That's why a lot of photographers moved to Sony. "

Flaw logic. When Adolf Hitler was elected by majority of the German people, it wasn't the proof that it was the better choice. History showed that this choice was completely wrong.

"Same size? Seriously? X-h1 is much thinner and lighter. DSLR will never have smaller and lighter body with high performance."

Instead of passing off the K1 comparison and jumping to 1Dx and D5, you must not guesstimate, you must put the K1 and X-H1 side by side, period. You must discipline your thinking process in order to stay objective and not get lost into backing up your feelings.

Are you incapable of evaluating the reality as it is?

"Look how small a9 is compared to Canon 1dx mark 2 and Nikon D5."

It is as if I say : the Honda Civic has about the right size for most uses. It is not too large so it is easy to park and yet has enough space for 4 persons.

You answer: Well bicycles are way smaller and that why more bicycles than Honda Civic where sold. And look at how small a bicycle is compared to a truck.

As a matter of fact, when shooting sports or wildlife, using a 300 2.8 or 600mm f4 lens, the difference between a A9 or 1dx or d5 , doesn't matter.

Of course the main point is that for those who are photographers as opposed to brand representatives, the more variety the better - the chances of finding something that suits us in terms of physical dimensions as well as ergonomics and features and price point increases with every manufacturer that takes a different approach.

The K-1's size approach is unlucky, and that it is probably one of the reasons for its market failure today.

I dig that 10 years ago, Pentaxians found the compactness of their APSC DSLRs likeable, and even more so the relative compactness of the APSC lenses, including slow and small "Limited" primes. they praised that. That stood for Pentax.

In a way I always could understand that. Pentax is for a niche within landscape hobbyists. Which often means vacation travel and hiking. For that, nobody wants to lug around a huge heavy burden of lenses and camera bodies.

The K-1, and moreso its lenses, were a betrayal of what Pentax stood for previously.

Today, Fuji X is the legitimate (and superior) successor of what Pentax APSC attempted to be many years ago.

The K-1 is just a dead end. The "me too" camera that the market doesn't need.

dpthoughts - false premises don't lead to valid conclusions

dpthoughts - I think it would be helpful to everyone here - possibly including yourself - if you explain why you hate Pentax far beyond the point of rationality

The K-1 line is a success, and the effort a certain Pentax-hater is putting toward bashing it is proof of that.
No troll would care about irrelevant products.

"It's the fanboy logic that becomes so absurdly weird, that I thougt I need speak up against it."

The problem is that aggressively hostile comments are part of the problem, not art of the solution. I find any triumphalist comments by extreme brand loyalists of whatever brand irritating, and sometimes I might correct assertions that are factually incorrect, but that's different to coming onto a comment thread of a camera you have no interest in and loading the comments threads with negativity, even ones that are no more than rationally supportive of the brand.

If you visit Pentax Forums, you'll find very few Pentax 'fanboys' there - there are probably more of other brands - but Pentax users are, on the whole a well informed bunch of people who happen to like the Pentax offering, despite the known shortcomings in some areas, and aren't trying to convince anybody else to buy Pentax or suggest that the cameras are better per se than any other brand. But when you relentlessly attack a product what you are actually doing is calling into question the judgement of all people who use that brand, regardless of their motivation, and people don't like that.

For what it's worth, I think that Nikon make great cameras, as do Canon and Sony (though I'm not a fan of mirrorless, and wouldn't buy one for that reason, but the tech is impressive). I've never used a digital Olympus or Fuji, but they have a loyal following of people I assume not to be fools. The truth is that competition drives innovation and gives photographers choice, and that seems to me to be a good thing. If that creates a few people who have a tribalistic brand loyalty rather than just want to have the gear that suits them to take the pictures they want, then it's a price worth paying in my books

Of course; all major camera makers are highly competent at what they're doing. We are fortunate to have plenty of different product lines to choose from; one size (brand, technology...) does not fit all.

IMHO a fanboy is unmasked by the frenzy with which he's attacking others' choices. Being happy with your choice is normal; being unhappy with others' isn't.

This has become a comedy skit, what a joke. Body too small for that lens, then buy a camera grip. Brilliant !!! But but I thought you purchased the Sony because of its compact size ? Why is the lens still huge and then spend more $$$$ for a battery grip ? Hilarious !!!

pentaust/ lol are you kidding me? Accept the reality. Pentax is the only minor company who is falling apart. How come Sony successfully selling tons of E-mount cameras? The selling percentage already telling you everything. In these days, people prefer smaller body and that's a trend. If you still believe that small bodies are inferior, then you need to explain why Canon and Nikon are moving to mirrorless industry.

Sunshine......there are lots of folks, me included, buy what we think is best. This decision is NOT based because more people like it. You got to respect that.

@Sunshine7913:
- Pentax is no company, but a brand of Ricoh Imaging. You don't know what you're fighting against (as for why...)
- a ton of E-mount cameras makes for slightly over 1,000 cameras (packaging included). So you're basically saying that Sony is selling thousands of cameras... I'm not impressed.
- E-mount cameras tend to become larger, contradicting your claim about trends.
- Canon and Nikon have no plans to abandon the DSLRs, so you don't get a passing grade here either.

Oh, and read what I said above about fanboys... respect our choice, if you want to be respected.

You're referring to the makers of the theta, I assume?

I recently went from sony to Pentax for my FF system. I waited for the a7r3 to take this decision and as soon as I could test it I knew they would not fix the ergonomics and user interface. I never liked shooting Sony and had problems with weather sealing on lenses and bodies.

When I got my em1.2 I realized it wasn't really the size of the body as much as the ergo I hated on the Sony I had. I often use the em1.2 with the 300mm f4 and the tc and the body is great to handle.

I can't care less what the media and the mass are pushing as a brand or a system. I rent or borrow and try and keep what's work for me.

"dpthougths" talks about Pentax and all the reasons why Pentax is not good the same way as the Nazis told about Jews and all the reasons why the Jews shouldn't be. Pentax brand hatred.

pentaust said: "talks about Pentax and all the reasons why Pentax is not good the same way as the Nazis told about Jews and all the reasons why the Jews shouldn't be."

I will never understand the psychology behind some Pentax fanboyism. To me this is weird, spooky and absurd. As if Pentax becomes a honeypot for a certain type of personality. I experience this weirdness also in other forums sometimes, if someone contributes a non-fanboy-compliant fact or opinion. Such type of comparisons would be simply impossible in any other brand's discussions.

"dpthougths" we have to adapt the language to match yours.

I think the moment you have to invoke Hitler or argue about him, you lose the argument. Godwin's law. This really has nothing to do with cameras whatsoever.

dptroll also went on about comparing Pentax to Trump before. We really need an ignore button in this forum.

And the largest problem with Pentax lenses is simply manufacturing capacity, it seems -and wanting to get it as good as possible. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a superb lens, but it was delayed in it's release - the forthcoming 50mm f/1.4 looks to be superb also, but was meant to e out last year - and the 85mm f/1.4 was expected last year, as isn't even being shown as a pre-production model yet. These are and will be great lenses, but the risk of losing the customers that will repay the investment before they are available has to be a worry for fans of Pentax optics (myself included.

Can't confirm that the Pentax 70-200 f/2.0 would be even a good lens.

It was tested in Germanys biggest photo magazine, "Color Foto", in 11/2016.
They gave it only 45 out of 100 points.
They summarized:

"2000 Euros are a steep price for a 2,8/70-200, even with WR. For that we would expect a convincing rendering quality. But the lens delivers that only at 70mm in the center of the frame".

Typically Pentax: only sharp in the center, only sometimes.

As always, Tamron and other 3rd party alternatives seem to be always better, but unavailable for the Pentax K mount of course.

speaking as somebody who actually owns one, that's utter crap

Looking at ephotozine tests:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-test-20748
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-hd-pentax-d-fa--70-200mm-f-2-8-ed-dc-aw-review-27358

Judging resolution alone (take it with a grain of salt, as I looked at MTF charts, not pictures), Tamron indeed has definitive edge wide open (although not as big at long end as at wider settings). After stopping down results are more or less on par, with some advantage for Pentax at F/5.6 and F/8.0, and for Tamron at F/4.

If we throw Canon's 70-200/2.8L II IS USM into the mix:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-lens-review-16101

We see that at wide end, Pentax looks better; at 135mm both lenses perform similarly, with Canon's slight edge at F/4 and Pentax' at F/5.6. At long end, Canon wins hands down, also against Tamron.

To sum up, I don't think such results support a claim that D-FA* 70-200 is 'not even a good lens', especially since it reaches at least 'good' rating at any settings (besides edges wide open at the long end, which are 'fair').

Unless, of course, one considers MTFs wide open the biggest priority, and does not value other features like top notch coatings, solid mechanics and all-weather sealing (and also, as opposed to third-party offerings, no compatibility issues with future bodies).

I tend to not trust the "solid mechanics" fan talks much.

All Pentax expensive top-tier lenses (those with SDM "supersonic drive motors") had motor mass failures. The only lenses alive today are probably those which are only used rarely.

This doesn't help to build confidence in their lens making skills. Even if the newer lenses don't have supersonic motors (or do they?) I don't trust that Pentax is good at lens internals.

Maybe if the new full frame lenses will have survived a few years, that will help re-building some of the lost confidence.

Regarding the magazine test being only 45 out of 100, this could have been due to an optical sample variation lottery? the DPR test of the K-1 II suffered from that as well as we know. This is the other thing about Pentax optics to be disliked a little, the seemingly ramdom poor manufacturing quality, i.e. frequent and high sample variations even with top-tier lenses.

"All Pentax expensive top-tier lenses (those with SDM "supersonic drive motors") had motor mass failures. The only lenses alive today are probably those which are only used rarely."

Not all. Some Pentax 645 lenses also have SDM designation and there are no reports of failures. Nor there are many failures reported on DA* SDM 55, 200 and 300mm primes.

That said, DA* 16-50 SDM is probably the lousiest lens Pentax has ever made, and it makes me wonder why Ricoh decided to keep it after acquiring Pentax from Hoya.

Thankfully, replacement is on its way. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/362799-new-da-16-50-2-8-patent-filed-japan.html

"This doesn't help to build confidence in their lens making skills. Even if the newer lenses don't have supersonic motors (or do they?) I don't trust that Pentax is good at lens internals."

If we judge their lens making skills by 10 year old designs, we might as well say that Sigma and Tamron don't inspire confidence either, looking at their screw drive and early HSM offerings. Some still selling today.

For some reason, Ephotozine reviewed the Pentax twice (maybe before and after the delay) and the results are quite different - much more even across the frame. Unfortunately they changed their way of displaying the results, but here are the second set FWIW
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-hd-pentax-d-fa--70-200mm-f-2-8-ed-dc-aw-review-29351

Before making the statement that all Pentax top tier lenses have SDM failures, please be aware of the following:

1) Pentax D-FA 70-200 F2.8 is NOT an SDM lens. It is a DC lens. None of those DC lenses had any of the issues those early batches of SDM lenses had (16-50mm and 50-135mm etc.)

2) Pentax found the issues of their SDM lenses and corrected it. None of the new batches have the SDM issues.

3) The upcoming D-FA 50mm is a USM lens and Pentax anounced that all the future lenses would be USM.

Pentax 70-200mm F2.8 lens matches or even exceeds (in some cases) other 70-200 F2.8 lenses. Having used three 70-200 F2.8 lenses from other manufacturers (Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II, Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR2 and Sony 70-200 F2.8 GM), I can confidently say that Pentax is equal (or better in certain aspects) to these three. One thing I found in Pentax is the uniform sharpness across the frame in most of the focal lengths right from wide-open. The only drawback that I can see in Pentax is the weight.

Well the German test magazine which gave only 45 out of 100 points summarized, it is sharp only at 70 mm only in its center. So we have to leave it open, if it is
- objective testing -versus- fan's promotion, or
- failing high expectations -versus- matching low expectations, or
- bad manufacturing quality control standards, i.e. sample variation lottery which is worse than industry standards, even at top-tier lenses,

Or some mixture of the above. But I suspect there's a lot sample variation then.

dpthoughts - Sorry to ask you this bluntly - Have you ever used Pentax 70-200 D-FA 70-200 F2.8 lens or even held it in your hands? What about the 70-200 F2.8 lenses from other manufacturers (Sony, Canon and Nikon?). I have used all the three and still have the Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM lens. Though it has tho sets of motors and seemingly over engineered capabilities, I would not rate it any way better than Pentax. I have used 4 copies of Sony 70-200 mm F2.8 GM and the first two were having all kinds of issues (decentered). No doubt they are good.

Pentax is is $1000 lesser than Sony, $200-$300 less than Canon. Nikon 70-200 F2.8 E might be a little bit better, but it is $1100 more than Pentax)

My point is don’t get caught up by one German Magazines review. I have great experience with Pentax 70-200 and a few others whom I know have the similar experience.

the only reason I left Pentax was it's discontinuation of many excellent lenses, the A* and the FA* without replacements. Many of these lenses can still outresolve 36MP+.

"- objective testing -versus- fan's promotion, "

- the problem, @dpthoughts, is that anyone reading these exchanges would have to conclude that you are less objective than the most diehard fan

"bad manufacturing quality control standards, i.e. sample variation lottery which is worse than industry standards"

Speaking about quality control ;)
https://petapixel.com/2017/07/14/nikon-recalls-d750-third-time-shutter-issue/

Nivedita, a small correction: there's no Pentax USM lens, and that won't happen ever - because USM is a Canon designation. USM doesn't mean ring-type, it can also be micromotor (e.g. in the Canon 50mm f/1.4).

The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 is thus a SDM lens; but this is a ring-type SDM (the first Pentax-designed one).
The D FA 15-30 and 24-70 are SDM lenses, but that SDM is Tamron's USD.

The DC motor proved its reliability and it's clearly faster than the micromotor SDMs, but the boost of speed given by a ring-type SDM is welcome.

The PLM drive is as fast as anything else. You have to see it to believe...

@Nivedita

“1) Pentax D-FA 70-200 F2.8 is NOT an SDM lens. It is a DC lens. None of those DC lenses had any of the issues those early batches of SDM lenses had (16-50mm and 50-135mm etc.)”

Dprhoughts spoke in the past tense when mentioning the top-tier lenses and as such he is not incorrect. Maybe you want him to be incorrect, but that doesn’t mean he is.

“2) Pentax found the issues of their SDM lenses and corrected it. None of the new batches have the SDM issues.”

This is a rumour and not an official statement. In fact Pentax has always denied the existence of the problem. And there are people that had their later-batch SDM drives fail.

“3) The upcoming D-FA 50mm is a USM lens and Pentax anounced that all the future lenses would be USM.”

USM is a Canon designation for technology similar to SDM. Also, where is the source that all future lenses will have this tech? Seems very unlikely given the introduction of PLM (or what Canon calls “nano USM”) in some of their cheaper lenses.

@ dpthoughts. quoted "Can't confirm that the Pentax 70-200 f/2.0 would be even a good lens"

Well, if you say so, I'm afraid that your language sounds like coming from a deject from the very bottom of society. Perhaps you should think twice before you write such things so that you'd at least sound like an educated person.

"This is a rumour and not an official statement. In fact Pentax has always denied the existence of the problem. And there are people that had their later-batch SDM drives fail."

I'm with @starbase here. There were no official statements regarding dying SDM motors, whether during Hoya or Ricoh era. People say that DA* lenses made after 2012 are far less likely to fail, but I've never seen Ricoh backing this claim up.

"Also, where is the source that all future lenses will have this tech?"
Again, that's just a speculation. New DA* 11-18 will be a DC motor lens. I'd wait with such predicitons until the new ring-type SDM in D-FA* 50mm proves its worth.

And I'd love some new PLM lenses. Plastic-fantastic DA 50mm and 35mm being perfect candidates for it.

Micromotor USM/AF-S fails, too. The best proof that they found a solution is that things are much quieter these last years. Also, the other lenses (than the 16-50 and 50-135) have much lower failure rates.
Even ring-type motors can fail, although that probably requires whacking them out of alignment.

Pentax abandoned SDM micromotors a decade ago. Next lenses will be either DC (which replaced the micromotors), ring-type SDM or PLM. Or whatever they'll invent next.

@dpthoughts You have to discern between SDM and SDM. SDM is like Nikon SWM: it is a container term that can describe a micro-motor (as in the DA* lenses, that are prone to failing) or a ring-type motor (as in the Tamron-rebadged fullframe lenses, that have a better track record).

And current Nikon lenses inhertited by grand-children... let's just wait and see if that will happen. The 17-55 is a tank of a lens. I have one and it might outlive me. But Nikon has cheaper lenses too, with micro-motors and gears similar to Pentax.

@Alex Sarbu "Pentax abandoned SDM micromotors a decade ago" Hardly. The DA* lenses are still in production with little in the way of replacements on the roadmap.

But I'm getting tired of this. Good luck everyone.

Let's have a look at Lens Rentals' statistics (a bit older, but since the non-Pentax lenses are rock solid... ;-) ):
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013/
It paints a different story.

starbase, the last SDM micromotor lens was introduced almost a decade ago - that's obviously what I meant.

@Alex Sarbu Fair enough. But if you have a Pentax crop camera and want a fast standard zoom today, their solution is still the 16-50.

And nobody ever complained about the reliability of screw-drive lenses.

"Nikon lenses are rock solid, can be inherited to children and grand-children"

Unless they start to squeak ;)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3871057
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3004144

"Should the Ricoh office printer bosses close down their little camera business, then things may get even worse."

Indeed. You might run out of things to troll about.

OK, so 7 years ago and 3 years ago, two persons out of a million heard a squeak, but it was perfectly fine otherwise.

With Pentax instead, there are mass failures for all users of SDM lenses, so that at their Pentaxforum.com there were even surveys which demonstrated this problem being a mass problem.

The Pentax DA* 16-50mm had a reported failure rate of 35%.
The other 65% of lenses, which were still working, were probably used only rarely.

The Pentax DA* 16-50mm doesn't cost $80, but $800. This failure rate is what you get at Pentax for $800 then.

I assume, that even a Yongnuo lens for $80 would be higher quality, more robust, more reliable and longer-living then.

Yeah, my 16-50 died too. I ended up buying another one used, and eventually swapped out the optics as the original one turned out to be slightly sharper. I tested the other one, converted it to screw-drive and sold it on at a discount.

My 60-250 also started to develop issues. But by that time I already got a D7100 and some Nikon lenses. Eventually I sold it at a discount too.

I lost money on SDM failing. And the irony is that that 60-250 was actually not as good at tracking a moving subject as the consumer-grade 55-300 I intended it to replace. The optics were marvellous though. It's the best Pentax zoom I ever owned: sharp throughout the frame at f/4 across the zoom range, and I think it might even beat my Nikon 70-200 f/4 in that regard. Although it did have significant focus breathing.

But the fact that a lens that's like 3 or 4 times the price of the 55-300 offered worse continuous AF performance was all the more reason for me to look further.

"The Pentax DA* 16-50mm had a reported failure rate of 35%.
The other 65% of lenses, which were still working, were probably used only rarely."

Those reports were made in 2012, and situation could've changed in the meantime (also, SDM failures were mostly reported when the lens was *not* used for a longer period of time).

That said, I won't argue with the fact that Pentax DA* 16-50 is simply a dog of a lens (not only because of sluggish SDM - optically it's not much better than the kit lens - at least the one that I borrowed for a while was), and its price tag is just plain ridiculous.

No need to beat the dead horse, unless you really want to keep pointing this out in any discussion about Pentax lenses, just for the sake of pointing this out. Whatever tickles your pickle.

However, if you assume that there are no 'dog' lenses made by other manufacturers (and still sold today for outrageous prices), then I think we may occupy different realities.

In particular, to your "Nikon lenses are rock solid, can be inherited to children and grand-children" claim I can only say, that "I tend to not trust the "solid mechanics" fan talks much." ;)

However, I've grown tired of this talk. Best of luck, and good light. :)

@Alex Sarbu "You're making a good team."

It's sad you have to say that. I mentioned before that I thought he was obnoxious at times. And I suppose you skipped the part in my post where I praised the 60-250?

@BarneyL I do have to say that the build quality of even the Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 puts my Pentax 17-70/4 to shame. Metal cams, hardly any wobble, a solid feel and tight tolerances. But I never used the Pentax 16-85/3.5-5.6, so I don't know how that compares. And I have no doubt there are worse build Nikkors as well.

@ dpthoughts: sounds like you accomplished your mission.

Oh thank God you are fine.......
I need some more entertainment......
Anyway mine will go for upgrade.......
Thanx again for trying so hard.....

Hmmmm, I thought he packed his Pentax gears for a hike and just having a swell of a time counting them pixels.

"Either way, Pentax can then focus its resources on the development of high-quality cameras with innovative features at good-value price points."

While I understand the logic of what you say, and I realise that it is meant in a positive and helpful way, I think that might be a difficult one for what remains of Asahi Optical Co to swallow - they were always a lens maker who made cameras to mount their lenses on, not the other way round - and they still make better lenses than they do cameras - just not fast enough!

@ffking:

Part 3:

Perhaps they don't have to give up lensmaking entirely. If they would simply make deals with reputable secondary optical firms for a good basic stable of modern primes that are already being produced by those firms, most of the development costs and delays disappear. (In particular, the Sigma Art lenses might be a good match, because a) they already feature a service-center-changeable mount, b) they lack stabilization, which could be done by Pentax cameras, and c) with their larger size and maximum aperture, they don't directly compete with Pentax's older, smaller offerings). Then Pentax cameras instantly would have much more utility, and credibility. And Pentax could focus on development of some truly unique optics not produced by anyone (as well as possibly modernize their older, smaller-aperture "limiteds"). Such unique items would have the potential to truly enhance Pentax's capabilities and reputation, as well as be higher profit.

Whenever Pentax had to find a new owner, I'm sure that they already have asked Nikon everytime first of all.

But I magine that Nikon declined every time, because say even if they had to pay only one symbolic Yen, then still they would need to maintain the running costs of Pentax operations, have the additional costs of merging two companies, but don't gain business volume, and don't get the type of customers which Nikon is interested in (i.e. the professionals or serious semi-pro hobbyists with a big wallet and very high demands). Because the latter have left Pentax and are with Nikon already since years.

Nikon would have been more interested in partnering with Fuji probably (there were rumors around a few months ago), because Fuji has similar high standards and reputation, has interesting customers (with big wallets as well), and a complementing (rather than overlapping) product programme.

Regarding Part 2 & 3:
I find it speculative, if Ricoh does FF lens design on their own?

The two most important lenses for the important use case (= landscape), the 15-30 and the 24-70, have been taken directly out of Tamron's shelf and stripped down (optical stabilization removed).

I take that as a possible hint, that Ricoh just can't engineer such lenses on their own, which in turn leads me to the suspicion, that the other newer K-1 lenses may be actually designed by Tamron exclusively for Ricoh only.

Back in Pentax Corp days, Pentax lens making had a name: Jun Hirakawa. He now works for Tamron,

And I don't know about any face or name which stands for lens-making at Ricoh.

Being so much dependent on Tamron limits what Ricoh can do strategically about its lenses.

Ricoh Imaging-designed recent FF lenses:
- D FA 150-450mm
- D FA 70-200mm
- D FA 28-105
- D FA* 50mm f/1.4 (pre-announced, expected on the market this summer)
Recent rebadged Tamrons:
- D FA 15-30
- D FA 24-70

If you truly want to know "any face or name", Mr. Masakazu Saori is responsible for several of the better Pentax lenses, including the D FA* 70-200.

Agree. FA 77mm F1.8 is not the most appropriate lens to test the Pentax K-1 II and to compare with K-1 MKI at least.. D-FA 50 Macro should be at least far better. But the best choice should be the Sigma Art 35/1.4 which can be found for all FF brands.

@BlueBomberTurbo
The Sigma 35/1.4 Art is available in K-mount (for Pentax).

I agree that adapters are a "no-go". I only wish that the downsides of adapters would be mentioned when it comes to comparing lens availability because many systems didn't/don't have a complete lens line up but were/are exempted from respective criticism due to their ability to use adapters.

The best solution, AFAIC, would be to use a lens model that is available across many mounts (such as the Sigma 70/2.8 macro) and use selected copies (checked for defects) on all cameras. Otherwise it will always be an apples vs oranges comparison.

@Mortal Lion
A good copy of the 50/2.8 macro would already do, AFAIC.

I don't think it is too much to ask for to source a lens copy that doesn't suffer from obvious defects. This level of quality control should be applied to all brands.

Otherwise, the quality of the distributor or company becomes a factor because some will do the selection in advance and others won't.

@Mortal Lion
"Because it is already in production and they can publish the reshoot when it is out in a month or so. I am sure Ricoh could supply them with a good sample."
- So you say they should wait with reviewing new cameras each time a new lens is just around the corner?

"Who cares about competitiveness?"
- So you don't care about your gear being competitive for the price you pay for it? Ok. But to give you an example, I'm considering Capture One as a Lightroom replacement. I want the software to help me solve certain problems. I can pay for that with money (and with a learning curve). In that sense, there is no difference between software and a camera or a lens, or any piece of gear that solves one or more problems for me. It's economics.

"I care about a realistic representation of the IQ potential of the camera. For that you need the best lens available."
- The lens you talk about is not available. It might be in a month, or in a few months more (remember the 70-200 delays?)

That's the Pentax way: to use a camera as a bait, and once a user is locked in into this closed system, they learn the hard way, that there's only an overpriced lens museum available, and this with no mitigation from 3rd parties like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (which have all written off Pentax K by now).

Mirrorless is different. E.g. with Sony you have a growing latitude of choice. There are big but state-of-art Sony G-Master or Sigma ART. Both are big and heavy.

Then there are the smaller normal lenses (non-G-Master). These are more compact and more convenient than DSLR lenses. Especially standard to wide angles.

For example the new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I was surpised when I saw in videos, how small it is, despite its end-to-end f/2.8.

Or to be landscape hikers' dreams, there are really tiny ultra wide angles around for Sony full frame by now or soon, e.g. the Rokinon 12mm f/2, or Laowa 10-18mm f/4-5.6. Just impossible for DSLRs.

With Pentax, you have only this Tamron-made D-FA 15-30mm. A huge hulk. This wouldn't find its way into my camera bag, neither with Pentax nor with any other camera body.

How someone wanted to lug around something like that during landscape hikes, and then paired with a hulk of a camera to make things worse, is beyond comprehension for me.

This is probably only for landscape shooters, which operate like mass tourists traveling by coach. Driving to a car parking lot, walking 100m, take the boring photo everyone else takes, then next.

The really good spots, and the ones not been photographed 100.000 times yet, they don't have a car parking lot next to it, but require long hikes.

[P.S] I just double-checked: the Laowa 10-18mm f/4-5.6 sounds as if it was for APSC, but it is indeed an epic-wide angle for full frame, but is pretty tiny for that, like many modern UWA for mirrorless.
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/venus-optics-announces-the-new-10-18mm-and-100mm-fe-lenses/

dpthoughts: There are many photographers, including me, which are completely comfortable with using one body and one lens only. In such case, the weight difference isn't that big and you can use any system, e.g. Pentax, even on landscape hikes. I switched from Nikon to Sony, the weight difference wasn't the main reason though. With the releasing of the GM lenses, Sony won me over and I purchased the 16-35 2.8 GM along with their FF body. That said, I can imagine myself using K-1 with 15-30 and getting the same results and I think I wouldn't be bothered by this bulkier combo in any way. In my opinion, K-1 is a perfect landscape camera, especially when paired with 15-30.

There is one hope only. There is a class called CameraController::CameraDeviceSettings. This class is totally virtual. It does not say what device settings you can control. I guess it is device dependent. The setting seems to be named with a string. So, somehow we need to find the possible strings for e.g. K-1.

https://api.ricoh/docs/camera-usb-sdk-cpp-reference/classRicoh_1_1CameraController_1_1CameraDeviceSetting.html

Seems so:

With CameraController::getCameraDeviceSettings

https://api.ricoh/docs/camera-usb-sdk-cpp-reference/classRicoh_1_1CameraController_1_1CameraDevice.html#a701d6067d0d53397dc7e8bb44110a56e

Robbo, the K-1 II does forced denoising also at lower ISO, which also means visible (and measurable) blurring. I wouldn't call that "very very good at stills shooting".

The gimmicks are half-baked, e.g. the handheld pixel shift is a failure. Every camera can do better using a photoshop stacking workflow.

Astro is also limited, the sensor movement path is much to short to allow for long supertele photos. It lacks general precision. For ultra wide angle shots (UWA), the sensor can't morph to compensate for the sky morphing when it moves across an UWA field of view.
So it isn't a replacement for stacking workflows and hardware astro trackers.

The review demonstrated, that even Pentax standard primes (50 macro and 77) have difficulties resolving 36 MP outside the image center, so that sometimes, there's hardly a difference to good 24 MP even when pixelpeeping.

36 MP isn't relevant for anything to most anyway, beyond just pixelpeeping. Human eyes resolve only a fraction of that.

"Astro is also limited, the sensor movement path is much to short to allow for long supertele photos."

Here, taken with 300mm/2.8
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54617583

"So it isn't a replacement for stacking workflows and hardware astro trackers."
No one claims it is a replacement. It's a convenience thing. The specialized hardware has its weight, price and complexity.

Also, if we're using hardware astro trackers, we might use Pixel Shift, for better colour depth in astro shots. Here's a Sony example (works in similar way)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60847795

"36 MP isn't relevant for anything to most anyway, beyond just pixelpeeping."
Ever heard about cropping?

True they are different beasts. And if you need 36MP, the A7 III is out. But better be sure you need it.

Pixel shift and stacking? You can take super resolution with any camera by just stitching more images taken with a longer lens. Need to rotate the sensor for astro? There are other solutions for that too.

A Pentax K200D with a kit lens can take better images than a Nikon D810 with a Sigma 24-105, but it will take more time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-GbuXU8YMQ).

So it's all down to which problem is most important to you to solve in a camera body, and which sacrifices you are willing to make for that. For me, autofocus is a core functionality because I can't buy an accessory that makes my camera focus better as I can for astro photos. But I think, if astro is your thing, you're willing to spend money on that anyway. And if it's not, then most people probably prefer to have better AF. Besides, if there's any scenery in your image, you don't want to rotate the sensor anyway.

And if you still want 36MP, you can get a Nikon D810 and have better AF for 500 euros more. Not that big a difference, especially if you intend to get lenses like the 15-30 and 24-70, both of which are cheaper as Tamrons, and give you the added benefit of a stabilised view for the viewfinder, light metering sensor and AF array. Or get a used D800 for less than 1000 euros.

The Pentax is a good camera with some unique qualities. But it's not better in every way, and it is worse in some ways.

Astro, p/shift and hand held stacking will mean more to some than 4k video and spanky AF and vice versa plus relevant and easy to use compared to alternatives.
Pentax's new zooms are 36mp compatible as will the upcoming primes.
Landscapers will use iso 100 and those who choose high iso may well like the baked in NR.
So many are up in arms, who cares!!
When I process wedding images in the evening or a dark church and I end up with noise reduced images and extra DR, I may well be pleased to have less to do in my workflow and find the end result to my liking .... ???
Its a camera that lends itself to enthusiasts taking pleasing astro, landscape or products images pretty much OOC with little extra gear or cost.
In some ways, the mobile phone of the DSLR world with far nicer results.
Its not a perfect camera, nor a direct competitor to many others, just is what it is and many like it for that ...............
The purists are horrified despite NR happening for years.

@starbase, good points!
Night scenes shot with wide-angle (e.g. milky way) have a moving part (the sky) and a fixed part (the tree, rocks, valley, or whatever). this alone requires a multi-shot workflow anyway.

Also, traditional stacking methods don't suffer from precision limitations, but Pentax' Astrotracer does.

This what's so typical for the gimmicks: The look good initially to the beginner, but are too limited to be really useful.

The horizon correction is another example. It is so unprecise, that it corrects the sky with every shot "differently", i.e. slightly wrongly. You have to post-correct it in the RAW converter anyway. If you do a multi-shot (e.g. bracketing), and forgot to switch the horizon correction off, then the frames don't match any longer.

Probably I should notify Rishi about these weaknesses, so that he doesn't dump untested gimmicks as "pros" into his pro/con table uncritically.

The score would be fair somewhere in the mid 70s.

@starbase..... quite true.
You could get a D810 if you valued better AF.
Many Pentax typical users dont actually care.
You see, they are walkabout shooters, landscapers and occasional astro shooters.
They often have older high quality lenses.
They can get extremely hi res images without buying a MF camera ... can do astro without buying the extra gear.
Can get even more detailed images handheld in one shot without stacking on a computer ....
Id like better AF and dont need 36mp hence im moving but understanding the Pentax user or potential buyer here is my point

@robbo d I'm not opposed to noise reduction. I'm just baffled by Pentax choosing to address this in the K-1 II as it can be achieved in post just as well and with little extra effort. And leaving it up to postprocessing software allows you to benefit from future software developments more (think AI and deep learning). Plus, the old K-1 wasn't bad noise-wise anyway.

But anyway, people used to Pentax will probably prefer to stay with Pentax because they can switch to the new body more easily. E.g. they know how the files will respond in post, they know where every function is on the body, they have integrated the camera into their workflow. Switching systems will throw that around and it will take some time to learn a new camera.

@dpthoughts The horizon correction is based on the same sensor that provides level indication in the viewfinder. On my K-5 it actually was off, straight out of the factory. On the K-3, it worked fine. Maybe Ricoh improved quality control.

"No you wouldn't do weddings with a K-1, because you need a camera with an autofokus (not talking speed for sports / animals for now, but precision and reliability for low depth of field, also for slowly moving subjects)."

Not true. Unless you shoot weddings where the bride is coming at you on a bicycle, and use release-priority AF-C mode. Pentax' AF-S has been precise enough since the K-5II.

"Then, in a church, you would prefer a camera with a silent shutter option (i.e. a mirrorless)."

K-1 has an electronic shutter mode (with all its limitations, like banding and RS, but it's there).

@robbo d "They often have older high quality lenses"

I guess that's true, and Pentax seems to want to underscore backward compatibility with all K-mount lenses every chance they get. But actually, this is something I don't get, because Nikon's F-mount has existed longer, and has retained the aperture lever (at least on anything but the "dinky" cameras), whereas Pentax has ditched this a long time ago, "crippling" the K-mount.

But you are moving from Pentax to another brand yourself? I think most people would probably prefer to have better AF, and Pentax doesn't try to appeal to most people.

About handheld pixel shift... the review speaks of artifacts, but I can't really see that tbh. So I don't know. But anyway, 36MP is already huge in terms of resolution, for me anyway. I now have 24MP AA-filterless (D7100), and even cropping half of the image out gets me a more than usable result. I think, if I need to do more cropping, I should just get the shot better in the first place instead.

@BarneyL I created this video a while ago when I had both Nikon and Pentax systems side-by-side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_C_g4GLkw. The "personality" of the AF systems, for lack of a better word, is just very different. And frankly, Pentax is somewhat obnoxious in that regard. I think the delays in K-3's AF you see in the video are indicative of what I experienced during that wedding. Outdoors, in daylight, the Pentax combination was much better. But indoors, not so much.

Btw, I've heard it all. "You choose the wrong lens for fast AF on Pentax", "The Nikon was not perfectly focused when you showed the LV image", "This situation is too specific" etc etc etc. I don't care. What you see is in my opinion indicative of Pentax autofocus over the 8 years I used that system, at least when used indoors.

You do what you wish, but is pointless to respond to dpthougths comments.

@BarneyL Ok, I assumed you were making fun of the bike test as that happened many times before. Like people saying on forums that Pentax AF is not good for bike tests but it is good for everything else.

We are talking, or at least I am talking, about real-world problems in photography that gear might be able to alleviate. However, I do have to admit there were other possibilities at that wedding too. Like shooting with a wider lens (I had my 16-50 with me as well), prefocused and getting a more dynamic shot that way. It actually would have been a better photo I think.

In retrospect, a flash and that 16-50 would have served me better than the 50/1.4 and the 16-50.

I know the K-5 II improved on AF. To me, though, going from the K-5 to the K-3 just added limited tracking capabilities and a denser AF matrix. Still, I do feel the K-5 II(s) is Pentax's best DSLR.

@BarneyL "This is offtopic, but older Nikon lenses have their own compatibility issues. Pre-AI don't meter with modern DSLRs (except Nikon DF), and may damage them."

True, but the situation is still better than in Pentax land.

"Also, screw-driven Nikkors (some of them truly exceptional, like 105mm Defocus Control or 80-200/2.8 AF-D, still made today) don't autofocus with all their cameras, including non-dinky ones like recent D7500."

That's just simply not true, which you would have known had you done your own due diligence on the matter. The D7500 does miss out on the aperture lever which might put some people off (I intentionally did not name the "dinky" cameras), but it has an AF motor just like the D500 or any of the fullframe models. And those fullframe models also all have the aperture lever (this is a bit more relevant to the K-1 II).

But I've grown tired of this discussion. Best of luck.

@dpthoughts

"robbo, No you wouldn't do weddings with a K-1, because you need a camera with an autofokus (not talking speed for sports / animals for now, but precision and reliability for low depth of field, also for slowly moving subjects).

Then, in a church, you would prefer a camera with a silent shutter option (i.e. a mirrorless)."

Using af-s on the modern lenses is generally adequate with k1 and even on older crop bodied Pentax. Some of the older lenses, SDM motor are stunning optics but s l o w

During my last wedding with k1 and 70 200 got only 80% of slow walking bride / bridesmaids walking directly towardme. Try shooting my little dog doing ths same is a joke.... so yes, hence im moving on.

There are a surprising amount using Pentax for weddings and doing ok. It comesdown to working with what you have.

In terms of silent shutter. K5iis and k1 are about as good as it gets compared to s 5D. No complaints from me or my celebrants.

I've not seen one, @madbrain - but if there was, I think that it should be made so that sensible balanced comments (such as yours) couldn't be ignored - impossible to implement, I know, but I can dream :)

Incidentally, what I was referring to - for those who didn't notice - was some pruning of the comments - it had got up to over 1250, then suddenly down to about 1214 - sort of interesting what survived that process and what didn't, but that's only anecdotal and not seriously investigated

But there are not 716 entry-level cameras above the K-1 II :)

The top 20 are occupied mainly by cheapos.

The top 100 sees also expensive top cameras one would expect to see.
- Nikon D850 is #21 (body only)
- Nikon D750 is #25 (body only).

#717 is a bit off though. Still better than Sigma's DSLR (the SD1 "Merrill" of 2012) ;)

Do you only buy what others buy a lot. We say of sheep that if one jumps down the cliff all the others follow. I know I know, that's idiotic behavior from the sheep, but that also happens to a lot of human beings.

@silversalts: you may be right about the score, and I'm glad that R.B. is instigating a re-test. But I'll point out that there are cons in the K1II list (heavy and bulky, for instance...)that don't appear in the D850 review---but the D850 is only 5 grams lighter but significantly bulkier...So, hopefully not only do we get a re-shoot of the test shots, and a re-evaluation there, but also a more even-handed pro-con list. BTW, the D850 is almost 2x the cost, and while it has some things the K1II doesn't, the K1II has several important things the D850 doesn't...I think all of these sorts of things need to be taken into account, to be fair.

Sony is better roohhhh. The way I see it is every camera maker suffers a lot from declining volumes. Sony fighting for profitability with aggressive multichannel marketing to take market share away from dominant players. And with all the spending Sony have to do, the bottom line is rather slim. When you have to spend twice as much as anyone else to get your camera sold, you may not even be profitable. At the end of the day, Pentax being bashed etc. but people would be surprised to know how many Pentax K1 sold world wide.

@dpthought as suspected, you again picked and chose data and wordings to paint Pentax in the worst possible light. Are you shorting Ricoh stock?

Ranked 670 because most people buy cheap DSLR and those with kits and accessories. Also there are uncountably many resellers of the same Canikon entry-level models while Pentax sells it's bodies on their own.

Add a kit lens and see...

Pentax K-1 Mark I w/D-FA 28-105
rank #175 in Camera & Photo > DSLR Cameras.

@dpthoughts. I am not interested in your kind of criticism. What I mean, is , many many K1 were sold and are now being used by many many photographers who are satisfied. Of course, other brands sold more based on access to distribution channels. Keep in mind that access to distribution channels has more to do with commercial strategy of a firm rather than how good is the product. Phase One don't sell many cameras but they are very good for what they are designed for. What is your problem with Pentax K1, does it hurt your feeling if it is a good camera.

That distribution channel thing is not an excuse.
The K-1 is a hobbyist / consumer camera for doing landscapes.
Hobbyist / consumer stuff is what Amazon is good for.

Of course, professional niche stuff or industrial imaging products have their own Channels, many products which Nikon, Sony or Fuji do will not be on Amazon. Say e.g. Sony's professional movie cameras, or Fuji's television studio stuff.

But if an ordinary entry-level Pentax DSLR for landscape hobbyists doesn't do well on Amazon, then this is not because it is "too good" for the Amazon sales channel :)

@dpthoughts

Nice try with your twisted logic, wordings and name-calling. Amazon carries consumer stuff without qualifiers like "for doing landscape". Dpreview itself says "Mid Range Full Frame Camera". Are you shorting Ricoh stock?

If you want to play the Amazon rank game, one can easily find A77II and A99II at rank 2000+. Alright. They must be abysmal bodies. Anyone who cares can see for themselves that the top 300+ ranks are full of Canikon kits at $500 or less.

"OK, one would argue, that" if you play the ranking game I'm sure #789 vs #2000+ is not comparable.

i'd rather stop feeding you - look to me either a troll or have some financial axe to grind.

@ dprthoughts: I can't stop laughing at your canned jokes, because
Sony is an low quality consumer electronics company. The Sony mirrorless market failure doesn't touch them really.

Because I don't know anything about the low quality consumer electronics market, I wouldn't dare to invest anything into that.

Should they shut down or sell their Sony business, then the stock prices may go up a little, because investors and owners always like to see, if their company gets rid of business segments with no sales, no profits, and no hope for the future.

LoL, can't stop laughing

No one is buying. Report that fact.

Good grief Ian. Those charts are all different sizes you posted so you are just as unprofessional as DPR.

Look at the DPR Studio Scene color chart. Increase the ISO starting at ISO100 step by step. It is clear which is better. By a wide margin as ISO increases.

Not about sizes its about color and they will do just fine to let us know as to what is accurate and what is not from known target colors.

If you would like I can edit them to the same size and let you have another go.

Ian you are clueless to what I am saying. It is completely irrelevant what you are posting. It proves nothing to what I have pointed out.

Ian if you are to dumb to do what I said then I can not help you see the difference.

No need for insults buddiiiiieeeee, I would ask you again as to how you are judging color.
Is it in the raw file, if so how can you see that color in raw ? If it is in jpg how was that image made? IF you can answer these questions maybe you can tell as to why I should see better color from iso 200-3200

I maybe dumb but I still know a little about color more than enough to get me into trouble ;)

The K-1 II is still the worst (most blurry) as of now.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1ii&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=nikon_d850&attr13_3=nikon_d810&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=607&x=-0.880420855053228&y=-0.2423786056642991

The user "Class A" had already apologised, that he was spreading the lie, that photos had allegedly been exchanged with versions made with the Tamron DFA 24-70. That lie was fake news originating from "fanboy hell" PF forum.

But as you can see in my crop, to me the K-1 II still looks as inferior with regards to detail removal, as it did ever before.

In the comparison, I included the older Nikon D810, that preserves all RAW details, having the same sensor.

Ian I have already explained what to do to see what I am saying but you refuse to do that. It is abundantly clear when you place the highlight anywhere on the color chart in the DPR Studio Scene comparison tool then increase the ISO each step the K-1MK holds better continuous color tone over the three other cameras. As you increase the ISO the K-1MKII progressively gets better the higher you go. But you refuse to do this simple test.

dpthoughts what you keep posting is not showing what you are saying. An easy way to tell you are wrong is to convert the images to B&W. What you don't understand is that is not a real person it is an image of person. As ISO increases the K-1MKII keeps it looking like what it is a 2D image of a person.

Again dpthoughts why not set up what I have suggested?

At least Class A has the integrity to apologize. DPR still hasn't printed a retraction to this review admitting they are wrong with their conclusion that the K-1MKII image quality is inferior than the K-1 which is clearly not true.

dpthoughts the only thing the bclaffs analyses does is confirm what Ricoh/Pentax says the Accelerator Unit is gong to do. The bclaffs analyses does no such thing as back DPR's conclusion or prove as DPR has falsely claimed that the Accelerator Unit is creating inferior image quality than its predecessor.

Most certainly not when the ISO increases. DPR's Studio Scene comparison tool proves that.

dpthoughts you have no clue what you are talking about which isn't adding any credibility to DPR.

Ricoh/Pentax most certainly said the Accelerator Unit was going to take a direct approach right from the sensor in creating better High ISO performance when it was introduced in the K-70 and KP. Here is a quote from DPR's Pentax KP review:

"It is at high ISOs where the KP really shines. Noise on the KP is incredibly low for an APS-C camera, besting both the K-3 II and D7200 at ISO 25,600. A jump up to ISO 51,200 widens the gap, showing the KP has a full stop better performance than its Nikon competition. We're a bit surprised by this performance, as there was little information given to us on how Pentax actually achieved this performance."

Ricoh said the Accelerator Unit was responsible for the greater high ISO performance that DPR saw in the KP yet for the K-1MKII they are claiming the Accelerator Unit is causing inferior image quality. Specifically high ISO.

Which is it DPR?

Ian the problem is you don't understand the difference between Hue Tone and Value. What you are talking about is color hue. Which has nothing to do with what I am pointing out.

Ian let me get you straight here. You have set up ISO 800 images to look the same then are asking me to tell them apart? I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Ian it is very simple. Go here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1ii&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=nikon_d850&attr13_3=sony_a7riii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.14612725404092308&y=0.7693379790940766

When you increase ISO it is clear which camera is holding better continuous tone and retaining better value.

Doing the same thing in the center where the Blacks, Whites and Greys are also confirms as ISO increases the K-1MKII handles the continuous tone and values much better than the other cameras.

Yet DPR review is claiming the K-1MKII has inferior image quality when ISO increases when their own test images show otherwise.

I think most of the guys here are seeing Nikon's and Sony's from DPR's image chart noises as beautiful as their eyes can see. This is the effect of brainwashing and Eye Retina hypnotics via fanaticism.

At the center, my eyes tells me Pentax K-1 MKII has the blackest and cleanest image at ISO 800.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1ii&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=nikon_d850&attr13_3=sony_a7riii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=800&attr16_1=800&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=800&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.0002802952443241275&y=0.01149825783972142

You gotta be effin' kiddin' me. DPR guys, I read and visit your sites almost everyday but this review is a total BS.

Or maybe my eyes are deceiving me or Nikon and Sony fanboys are just blinded by their own bloated ego gear addiction. hahahaha While we Pentaxians we are out in the field capturing moments.

blah blah blah so many excuses and explanations. Cut the crap and show me the photos! I don't care how they bake the RAW or not but as long as the end result is awesome, clear and color rich then Pentax Ricoh has my money. Plain and simple.

dpthoughts the Accelerator Unit is always on at every ISO level. It doesn't get turned on after some ISO level. Let's test your new theory that we can not use the center as it is an unfair advantage to Pentax lens superior center sharpness. Here is an extreme border that shows the same exact results as ISO increases the K-1MKII maintains better continuous tone & value:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1ii&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=nikon_d850&attr13_3=sony_a7riii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=607&x=1.1386527141922824&y=-1.014285714285714

dpthoughts what is your next excuse?

You can see looking in the four corners that the K-1MKII is not completely square like the other three cameras. The diagonal from lower left to upper right is slightly off which makes those corners soft.

Ian to your own admission you set up the images to look the same so how can there be a difference to choose?

Ian your posts are telling you are as useless as dpthoughts.

Hahahaha you don't even know what Pentax Limited Lense means...

Great to hear Madbrain !!!

Who cares..dptroll you can keep your high ISO crap image.

People who like underdogs are cool guys.

dc troll, are you a Russian bot?

Please point me to files shot with a zoom? As far I have seen everything was shot with the D FA 50mm 2.8 macro. I have compared a raw I downloaded may 8 with one I downloaded today. it was identical to the last piece of noise. (which you can easily check by stacking them in Photoshop). Claims need to be backed up, otherwise they are fake.

@dpthoughts, I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that Accelerator Unit applies NR to RAWs. It's also been that way in KP and K-70 - labtesters have pointed that out, but it didn't cause much of a discussion.

Here people are disputing the degree of NR's impact on the perceived details, and whether such 'loss of details' actually matters, or is so small that the lens variation has relatively much bigger impact on it; and also whether "RAWs should be left untouched" is more of a philosophical than scientific argument.

Also, there seems to be some sloppiness involved, as people noticed images changing during the past days. I think I'll just wait with forming my own opinion about the camera after more labtesters take a look at it.

Anyway, I'm not into this camera just like I wasn't into its predecessor - it does not offer much more than my K-3 II, besides nice tilting rear-screen and mythical full-frameness. Looking forward to the rumored new APS-C flagship, and some new glass.

@pentaust "where is the bclaff measurement / curve?"
In addition to K-1 II results (not complete yet) at PhotonsToPhotos you may find this thread interesting:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4280893

OMG, thanks bill.
But I think the debate is not if the processing engine (with accellerator) does have an impact on the raw data - of course it has, that was the sole purpose of including it - but if this NR can be done without destroying information in the images.
The test revealed that for lower ISO no NR is done and for higher there is some. The images provided for evaluation unfortunately are not consistent enough to decide if the significant benefit in input referred Read Noise (that's amazing) does have impact on perceived sharpness.
Some parts of the image seem (much) better, some at least equal. But lens and development settings have their impact here too.
Whatever, some people are only here to stir the pot. At other forums they already got banned for spamming and trolling, and they are not interested in discussions. Don't feed them.

@Mortal Lion please check the files in https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1-ii-review/6 . They used the D-FA 24-70 f/2,8