Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade?

DPR is probably too busy to waste much their time to follow up various different noise cheating scenarios, or details eating scenarios, depending on whatever tweaks.

For example, unlike Pentax, Fuji X transforms their X cameras into almost new models with every firmware update, but even then, DPR wouldn't want to afford the time to do a re-test every time a firmware was released.

I'd rather like to see DPR to focus now on more interesting brands/models with their new stuff. I think that the K-1 II has to be written off, the main message still being
- the handheld sensor shifting being a failure
- nothing else of interest
- therefore, no reason was given to assume, that the negative trend can be stopped for the medium to long term future.

I have written the K-1 II off, and Pentax FF along with it, so I'd prefer DPR to turn their resources towards interesting stuff from other brands, which interests much more readers than just a small bunch of die-hard Pentax fanboys.

Says the Sony lust boy who has no life and sits at his keyboard trashing Pentax all day every day for the last week.

No, not a fanboy of any particular brand.

The Nikon D760 (the nickname of the D750 successor) will be the next big thing. I read it is predicted to have 36 megapixels as well:
https://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/camera-rumors-1278354/3

So I believe it may not be Sony alone, but actually Nikon, who wil finish off the Pentax K-1 I/II eventually.

A childish game. I see this in the tennis forums as well. I like this player v. the other. I like this camera v. ...
You prefer Nikon. So be it. Enjoy taking picture with that one.

Pentax annoys some people. Is that because it offers 95% of what other cameras do, plus things such as astrotracer (pixel shift and other things, I'll pass) that other cameras don't do, for half the price? That's annoying.

@Rishi Sanyal
Just in case you haven't seen the link yet:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/365652-k-1ii-review-opportunity-get-banned-dpr-7.html#post4277765

How do you explain these "BEFORE" / "AFTER" screenshots that show different views of the ISO 128000 K-1 II image, including a different JPEG file size?

Other uses have even downloaded the different file versions and have seen different metadata, etc.

If you don't know anything about the changes that occured then someone else at DPReview has to know what has happened. Do you not agree?

Meanwhile the images from the K-1 II show a different lens identification. It seems the studio scene has been re-shot with the D FA 24-70/2.8.

If so, then this would imply, that DPR surrendered to the fact, that Pentax can't engineer decent primes?

The 24-70/2.8 is a Tamron lens (Tamron designed, originally for Canon/Nikon).

Yes, Tamron zooms are better than Pentax primes. So this switch would have made sense, rather than just asking for another copy of the Pentax 77mm or 50mm.

Sorry for my earlier post regarding the 24-70/2.8. I followed a link by someone else, not realising that it led to a different set of images.

In other words, there has not been a re-shot of the studio scene.

Class A,
No reshoot, but the output of RAW files in the DP comparison tool did change, as did the size of SOOC JPGs made available for download.

@madbrain
Yes, I know that there was a previous update.

All I'm saying is that there wasn't yet another one. :)

For cameras, which are good and get a corresponding review, there's probably not all to much to discuss about it afterwards.

For K-1 II, a not-so-good camera with many flaws and a corresponding review, that meets die-hard fanboys. This then always leads to a sh*t storm and 1000+ comments. This is only natural and easily predictable.

Heard such things for years. Gear doesn't matter blah blah blah. But then these photographers will then use expensive DSLRs instead of a cell phone or some cheaper camera.

I shoot weddings for a living and I need reliable AF. I get a higher keeper rate with my A7 III than any of my older cameras. My A7 was pretty horrible when trying to shoot moving objects. With the A7 III and eye AF it's far easier to nail the focus.

@Brandon : you wrote " My A7 was pretty horrible when trying to shoot moving objects." Thanks for acknowledging this fact. This is strange because until the A7 III was available, you would strongly deny that the A7 has poor autofocus (much worse than DSLR, actually).

A camera is a tool that can solve problems for you. I consider good AF to be very important because, unlike noise, that’s something you can’t fix in post. And that’s also why I would not be comfortable spending 2000 euros on this camera.

Apparently the AF on K1 II is snappier. Still not the best, but might be good enough for everything but sports/action photography.

@pentaust Yes and that’s good. But my guess is they could have done more if they wanted to.

@pentaust - lol its nice to see that I have a fan! :D

The AF is totally dependent on circumstances. Tracking is not that great but general AF is perfectly fine. I don't think I ever claimed it was better than DSLRs cause its not true. Its a match for cheaper DSLRs but higher end ones will be better. The A7 II is much superior in this regard.

@madbrain You like typing, don't you?

I don't.

"under normal circumstances no camera loses detail as the ISO setting is increased" In theory shouldn't lose details at higher ISO. Practically, and without any noise reduction applied, noise reduces the perception of details.

Higher ISO, more noise. More noise, lower signal-to-noise ratio. Depends how you define "detail", but by most people's take noise obscures detail, i.e. the detail is already lost even before NR is applied. Ideally NR just removes the noise and replaces it with average (detail-free) signal. In practice some additional detail is always lost because the algorithms cannot perfectly discern signal from noise.

@Richard Murdey. You present reasoning for why it might be so but no evidence that is in in fact so. I agree that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) would be important if you were to attempt to quantify "detail" but then it will depend on how much contrast your test target or scene has. I suspect that when SNR gets poor enough to affect "detail" the image is unacceptable anyway so the issue is moot.

It's not so much evidence as it is the definition of "signal" and "noise". If you are taking self-serving definition of "loss of detail" as "the effects of noise reduction" then one does of course ends up with your conclusion ...

By it's very nature Noise Reduction (NR) always smooths out data and reduces "detail". The assertion I challenge is that raising the ISO setting, which is *not* NR, results in the loss of detail. If so, that loss of detail would arise from a lower Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) and not NR. I further assert that by the time SNR is low enough to affect detail that image (or area of the image in the deep shadows) is no longer photographically relevant; so it's a moot point. Perhaps you can cite *evidence* to the contrary.

starbase218,

I have looked at the K-1 II vs K-1 images in detail, at all kinds of ISO. Except for the parts which have optical lens aberrations, visible at ISO 100, the K-1 II looks better to me in almost about every case. That is to say, there is both less noise in the K-1 II, and just as much if not more relevant detailed signal.

Take this example :
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1-ii-review/5

I would take this ISO 12,800 K-1 II image any day of the week over the K-1 due to color error. I don't think anyone would think of publishing the K-1 v1 image without doing some processing for this color error. Same for the D850 image. The 645Z has more detail than K-1 and K-1 II, but also more color error than K-1 II.

To be quite fair, at ISO 100, the K-1 II picture looks much better than K-1 also. This must be one of the few parts of the image where the lens is better in the K-1 II test than the K-1 v1 test.

dpthoughts - " Yes, the K-1 I and II look similar now; so that both are to the same extent inferior to the D850 and a7rIII now."

Yes, and around half the price.

"I wonder how many orders were not placed, cancelled or postponed due to this review."
I wondered that, so started a poll a few days ago - not specifically about this camera (although I did mention it) but about the affect of a 'poor review' here. People's definition of a 'poor review' may vary etc. etc. and the poll is still open so I've no idea how it will look eventually - at the time of writing this it showed a reasonable proportion would not buy if the camera had a 'poor review,' and of course sample size, not the right questions (7 people said none of the options suited them when there were just over 100 votes and that number will rise) and so on... still, I think reviews here could affect buying habits: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61119660

Dptroll maybe you should be a camera engineer. You are a better than pentax. You don't cheat. Now go tell that to your mom.

dptroll,
The A7 III will still cost you way more than the K-1 II when you consider lenses.
The takeaway from the K-1 II DPR tests is that optics were bad, but it's unclear whether it was a bad lens copy, or all are this way, or incorrect alignment/focus. The non-studio shots from DPR don't look so bad even in corners. Hard to say.

The Sony lens prices are just way higher than Pentax in general. I shudder to think what my collection of lenses would cost in Sony mount. More than the camera, for sure.

Lenses I have that work in FF mode, all AF :
DA35/2.4 - bought about $100 new
DA40/2.8 - bought about $100 new
DA50/1.8 - bought $100 new
FA50/1.4 - bought about $100 used
D FA 28-105 f4-5.6 - bought about $300 new (kit lens)
Sigma 70-300 APO DG - bought $100 used
Sigma 28-300 DG - bought $60 used

That's $860 in lenses. What can I get for an A7 III for that price ?
I'm still looking for something ultra-wide that is decent under 28mm and won't blow my budget. Seems like only the Samyang 14mm for $280 would work, but I'm reluctant, but it is MF.

While I know the lenses you mention have good reputation, I don't think they are in my budget.

I don't require the fastest / heaviest glass. It may very well be that I'm not fully utilizing the 36MP.

But even if I go for a 24MP A7 III that costs the same $2000 as the K1-II, how much would it cost me in lenses to build a comparable collection for a Sony camera ?

dptroll,
I am not interested in discussing Pentax marketing aspects or market share with you. It has very little impact on my photography.

dptroll,

There is no problem except in your mind.

Also, if you believe I bought a K-1 II solely because of its 36MP, you are wrong. It had much more to do with having more stops of light due to 35mm sensor, and being able to shoot at high ISO with limited noise, combined with a stabilizer to give me handholdable shutter speeds without having to carry a tripod around. The largest print I ever did so far was 20x30 from my 10MP K200D. It looks just fine. I'm sure I will do larger prints some day, or prints of crops. Not yet.

I know that Sigma 28-300 is ancient, but at $60 (was $55 + shipping actually), it was hard to pass up. I have yet to try it on my K-1 II. I have taken a look at the quality of my APS-C lenses in crop vs FF mode, in terms of both vignetting and resolution. Most are doing just fine. My test subjects involve a bookshelf at home, and it is very easy to tell if something becomes soft as titles would become difficult to read.

dptroll,

I didn't say 36MP was irrelevant, just that it wasn't my main reason for buying a K-1 II . Can you read ?

I have looked at the test images from A7 III vs K-1 II - the sharp parts, and I prefer the K-1 II images, BSI sensor and dual-gain or not.

As for junk, I think your mind has been seriously polluted. My Pentax lenses are good enough for me, at a price I can afford. What do I care if Sony lenses that cost 3-4x more are marginally, or even significantly better ? The K-1 II PDAF is good enough for me, also, actually very much improved over my K-30.

Pentax lenses mounted on a Sony body would still not get any AF. Focus peaking helps primarily for video, in my experience, not for stills. I never shoot stills looking at a screen if I can help it, only OVF, which Sony lacks.

I have a GX85 with an EVF, and in some situations, such as low shutter speed, its EVF is far worse. Try doing a 2" exposure and composing your shot when you have to wait 2" for your viewfinder to update.

Fortunately, I only bought the GX85 for video, not for stills. But it gives me a taste of the problems an EVF can have for shooting stills, and the drawbacks if ever went to Sony mirrorless.

The only situation I ever shoot on a screen is on my cell phone, because that's the only way, and only if I don't have another camera nearby.

I don't think there is any point in continuing the discussion here. You have strongly biased opinions against Pentax. You don't make any effort to hide it. You simply ignore posters' points and price point requirements. You are also not civil.

"...accuse them of bias, it really makes no sense considering how small the Pentax market share already is. "

That reads like it could be more understandable to accuse DPR of bias if Pentax market share was greater ?

I don't think that was your intention, though.

Yes, you read it right. Who would be the beneficiary of alleged anti-Pentax bias, which competitor would see their market share be protected by this move?

Depends how we see it. If the cameras evaluated would have the exact same look (same buttons etc), and be without brand, there wouldn't be so much difference in the evaluation result. Here, tiny differences are magnified like hell. In practice, show the photos to the public , even printed XXL without telling what camera brand they come from and it'll appreciate the photos for their content. Already , most people can't tell the difference between two sensor formats (Fuji will tell you there is no difference between apsc and ff), and here the conclusion of the review is about the huge difference between K1 II and K1 and compared to other camera models of the same format from other brands. People definitely need to keep their feet on the ground instead of making those tiny differences look so obvious like the nose in the middle of the face.

Interesting idea, about the 'last' test here.
I agree, that it's not so easy to find good tests of Pentax gear and appreciate the coverage at dpreview.
And if you see the amount of comments this has generated until now - this is a clear win! A lot of clicks, and hell yeah, out of boredom and interest I even reread the KP review, and stumbled upon some other accessory gear article, finding it so interesting that I followed the link to Amazon and bought it... Haha

" The K-1 was mainly a (parting?) gift to Pentaxians" . I don't know any company making new products for donating gift. If you believe the K1 was a gift, you may be working for a SOE or non for profit organization or anyway have no idea about companies making products for profit.

Are you calling all the evidence collected by numerous users who looked at the DP review site manufactured ? We are talking about at least 4 separate users having seen changes. It would be one thing if there was no evidence, quite another in this case. Are we all liars ? We are beyond allegations here. Surely a logical explanation will come from DPR, in time.

Changing images is hardly the worst thing that was done, though. The new images look better, after all. No need to pretend they didn't happen.

@madbrain I'm not discounting the possibility of a simple technical glitch that resulted in the wrong image being displayed in the "old" screenshot when it was grabbed. And you shouldn't either.

starbase218, and I don't discount it either. There is surely a reasonable explanation for the facts that were presented. I just don't like when the evidence is being called into question, and being called a liar.

But you do insist on it being evidence. You set the tone, and it's a tone of hostility.

I didn't use the word evidence to mean that it was wrongdoing, simply proof that it was true. I am happy to call it something else - fact, finding, if that will set a better tone.

But if someone pretends nothing happened, and calls it fake news, despite all the posts to the contrary from different users in multiple forums, who is really being hostile ?

That what was true - DPR having replaced the image? If that's the case, you are dismissing the possibility of the technical glitch now?

I'd just be careful with pointing fingers. Best to ask if DPR knows what may be the case for these people seeing different images before and after.

But anyway, your thing. Do as you want.

@madbrain There's no evidence to stand up a claim that DPR have engaged in dishonest or underhand conduct by surreptiously changing files after the fact. You may have evidence that one or more files has changed, if your evidence checks out, but until someone can establish why by ruling out alternative explanations, it's not evidence of underhand conduct. When asked to consider the difference between allegations and facts you don't but instead become defensive. Classic fake news propagation cycle, even if you don't realize it yourself or don't think there has been underhand conduct.

@petreluk
Where did madbrain state that there is evidence of "dishonest or underhanded conduct"? These are your words only.

The only claim I have seen madbrain and others make is that at least one of the K-1 II images has changed. As multiple people witnessed this and have evidence in the form of screenshots and downloaded files, it is a bit rich of you to refer to them as creating "fake news".

If you cared to look at the metadata differences people reported regarding the different file versions, you would probably not entertain "technical glitch" theories.

I hope that DPReview will clarify what happened and will answer questions as to whether their assessment may have been based on images that weren't up to snuff yet. So far, I've only seen two responses which denied that any change occurred, which is very difficult to reconcile with what others have independently witnessed.

I'm hopeful there will be a logical explanation and I don't suspect underhandedness.

@ClassA This site is full of it by now. There’s one at the top of the thread as I write by one powderhound linking back to a thread on another website with terms like “beyond dishonest”. It’s classic fake news: a statement is made, the worst spin is put on it, soon the two together have been amplified far and wide as proven hard fact by others. Evidence of file changes is not on its own evidence of underhand conduct. Make a serious allegation like that then prove it, each link of the chain.

@petreluk
First, if you are addressing madbrain, or anyone else for that matter, please be sure to only accuse them of what they did, not of what you think others may have done.

Second, powderhound only stated that "apparently" someting has changed and then wonders about the number of sales the review may have prevented. Again, no accusation of malpractice by DPReview.

If there are people using terms like "dishonest", on another site, please take it up with them.

Third, I don't understand your step by step guide, as none of the people you have mentioned and addressed so far has intended to do any second step. We don't claim to have evidence for malpractice, we are only stating there is evidence for change. Some have even welcomed the change and only wonder what happened. Others simply want to understand whether the change observed should result in a reevaluation on behalf of DPReview.

We no longer trust DPR. Plain and simple.

Class A,
Thank you for your comments.

petreluk,
As Class A said, you are only putting words in my mouth, that I simply didn't write. All I - and several others - wrote is that a change happened. We are wondering why. I didn't write that it was underhanded, or beyond dishonest. You did.

I'm not going to dignify any more posts of yours. "Classic fake news" is rich given that there is no accepted definition of "fake news", much less "classic". I don't write news, or headlines. I'm only a guy posting on some camera forums, reporting on the content.

If you want to make a point, how about using terms that have generally understood meaning, like "true" or "false" ?

The findings are there for you and anyone else to see and verify. Who do you think should be the final arbiter of truth ? If you want to make the case that nothing happened to the DPR images, then you better explain why you think the findings are false, and why multiple posters reported them.

All you are doing is spreading innuendo that multiple posters manufactured the findings. If you cared to look at the discussions that led to these findings, you would see that people were simply looking at the same images, coming to widely different conclusions, and finally noticing that they were looking at different sets of images from the same site, once screenshots were posted. That is incontrovertible. The only alternative is that there was a conspiracy and all those posters doctored the screenshots and lied in their posts. And if you believe that conspiracy theory, you better have at least some proof to back it up. You haven't provided anything but innuendo. Your posts have been completely fact-free. Can you understand why people would react negatively to that message ? No need to reply, really. Interested readers can go check it out for themselves.

Doesn't invalidate anything. We test all cameras in default mode, which is usually either a balance between release and focus priority, or release priority.

For good reason: else any camera could 'cheat' our test by prioritizing focus while dropping to ridiculously slow frame rates.

It wouldn't be helpful to measure absolute hit rate at those speeds would it?

That's why we benchmark cameras at or near their stated fps rate.

Considering most cameras fly a single shot in AF-C with flying colors, it wouldn't make sense to dumb down our test just for Pentaxians would it?

Testing AF in continuous drive mode in focus priority requires us to measure resulting fps as well. By using the default balanced priority, we assess the hit rate closer to the started fps.

A much more reasonable way to compare cameras, given their stated continuous fps figures, wouldn't you say?

It might invalidate your test, or not - we won't know if you're unwilling to even consider this possibility. Focus priority and getting more images in focus seems somewhat related.
DPReview is nowhere near important enough for camera makers to adjust their cameras specifically for your test. These settings are there to help their users; your "cheating " scenario makes no sense. Your "ridiculously slow frame rates" scenario is something you've made up, not measured. This is looking for excuses.

By the way, the default is Auto for both the K-1 and K-1 II; only the AF Hold default changed, to Off. Yet one camera was tested with Release priority, and another with Focus priority - nobody there was curious why?

The OOC JPEGs, that's an excellent example.
Pentax indeed goes with defaults they think are most suited to photographers (likely considering some post processing) instead with what would get them better results in reviews.
Such a behavior should not be penalised, just like optimizing for tests and not real world usage should not be encouraged.

How close those default settings are to those ideals, that's another matter.

@ecka84
This particular discussion was about the (lack of) merit of using default settings.

I agree with you that cooking RAWs is bad and that any RAW processing should be optional. I hope Ricoh will give us an option with a firmware update.

Many manufacturers cook their RAWs, though, after a certain ISO threshold. This isn't a first by Ricoh by any stretch of the imagination, except that the processing starts rather early.

In the case of the KP, however, even DPReview liked the RAW cooking. I don't know whether the KP's processing is better or DPReview changed their attitude. I genuinely don't know and make no allegations either way.

Just imagine an Alpa with a Phase Phase One 100MF digital back, would completely fail bike tracking test, dpr would give it get a grade lower than point&shot.

Yes. This is very sad :))

Their score is baseless and it is subjective scoring base on own's feelings..

I also found it puzzling, how rediculous high the score is.
As tested, it should have been in the lower 70s.

The other thing I disliked in the test, was that DPR didn't bother do look deeply in to the Gimmicks, how half-baked and unreliable they are. Instead, DPR just dumped them untested, uncritically as postives into their conclusion table.

Instead, DPR focused very much on the RAW noise cheating issue, as the key message.

For the next model (if there will be any), this should be done better also for the gimmicks, with the same diligence as noise cheating reviewing.

I admit though that DPR has to have a tunnel blick onto the body, i.e. can't judge the factors such as
- unavailability of good prime lenses,
- bad flash systems,
- bad rental & service,
- bad 2nd hand market prices,
- unlikelihood of the long term survival of the camera division
etcetera.

If this was factored in, a score of somewhere in the 50s or 60s was fair.

@dpthoughts: Nah, considering the general unworthiness of anything Pentax and the sorry pee-ons who use it, the score should have been in the low twenties, or even lower!

Hmm, yet somehow, for no particular reason, some photogs out there are still shooting these cameras and lenses, and - wait for it, that's the best part! - they even manage to take the occasional accomplished photo with them. Strangely enough, they may not feel their gear is curbing their creativity, but instead helping them to express it.

Seriously, do you ever tire of your keyboard warfare and negativity? I don't know what you are shooting, nor, frankly, do I care. I'm just curious why you are focussed so much on gear and putting down particular gear, and so little on creating? Life can be fun, you know ...

Beyond that, other odd things have happened with this review :
- many parts of the test shots are blurred or out of focus. We are told by DPR to look only at the center, but if so, why post the whole scene ? IMO, it was a either a bad lens or misalignment during the tests, and shots should not have published as they are
- the fact the K-1 II camera DPR tested was using firmware 1.0, vs 1.01 for anyone else who owns one so far . Could be a pre-production camera, though I doubt last-minute bug fixes would have any impact to IQ/NR
- some OOC JPEGs files have changed size in the camera comparison tool
- the JPEGs that are shown when viewing "RAW" files in the camera comparison tool have changed since the original review - for the better . Can't blame DPR for reprocessing the files better, but it should at least be noted somewhere. And the lens optical problems still show even in these new files.

Sorry but as you might have seen in my comments: I believe none of the reprocessing and changing claims. File sizes shown etc are just CMS stats - they change with changed cms settings or SAN / disc setups that provides no "evidence".
I do believe that more and potentially better lenses are being made available for the Pentax FF mount. I cant comment on their quality but that might of course influence a comparision.. in any way possible.

CaPi, are you saying different content servers are serving different images of different sizes to different users ? For that to happen, files had to get changed somewhere at some point before replication accross servers.

I believe at least one person on Pentaxforums downloaded two versions of JPEG files at different points in time and can compare them, including metadata. The different in size was not small.

And I took screenshots of the tool that were vastly different than those of the other poster.

I don't think this is made up.

Are you being civil in your first statement?

Cared enough to reply apparently.

Thanks for pushing and bringing your sharp eyes to open our eyes! Just looked at the Studio Scene Image Comparison Tool, you have confirmed what I was saying. The Pentax K-1 Mark II is looking UP and DPR needs to take a DEEPER look.

@Rishi, why does K1-ii studio scene at ISO 12800 look better now than before? Will some explanation be offered?

Rishi,

Apology : my post wasn't deleted - it was in another thread. You posted the same reply twice. I posted my response too.

Here is the evidence of changes to files and review tool once again :

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/365652-k-1ii-review-opportunity-get-banned-dpr-14.html#post4277765

CaPi,

I have tiny hands, smaller than most women, and no strength in arms to speak off. Short fingers make it very challenging to play my grand piano. But much easier to play harpsichord. Yet, I still love handholding my K-1 II which weighs 4.4 lbs with a grip, eneloops, and the D FA 28-105mm kit lens.

Probably has to do with being used to shooting Pentax bodies for the last ten years, which are not known to be compact/light .

I bought a Lumix GX85 two months ago, and even though it weighs 1/4 of the K-1 II with a 12-32 lens, I cannot handhold it for long exposures.

I actually did a test of long exposures last night, and was shocked how badly I can handhold the much lighter camera vs heavier one. In-body IS in the K-1 II seems to work much better than dual IS in GX85.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/365659-k-1-stabilization-vs-olympus-e-m1-mark-1-stabilization-oly-really-good-3.html#post4277802

If you don't care, no need to say it again :)

@mad: I cannot speak to the Panasonic GX85
and my comment about caring was regarding another post.
I tried the K1 and went back to my Nikon. The grip is not for me so its a good example of not being an overall a fit for me.
Regarding the raw topic: problems just happen no need to summon wild theories of blaming and shaming.

I used a grip on my K200D years ago. It was nice. Held 8 AA batteries too. Plus the 4 inside the camera itself. All eneloops. I could make 2000 shots in a single day - and did, once, at an SF gay pride parade - without changing batteries. All in the daytime, no flash. That camera didn't have high enough ISO for practical indoor/night-time though. Anyone want to buy my K200D for $100 ? Grip was already sold years ago. I gave it to my mom, but recently got her a K-50 for Xmas to replace it, and got the K200D back.

re: the replaced shots,

The evidence is strong that files were changed. We don't know how or why. But it's undeniable that several users got different images from the DPReview site at different times. I hope an explanation will come, rather than denial.

3. true.

4. I think there is a flash that offers HSS on Pentax body, Shanny 600G. Have one on order from China. It hasn't come yet.

5. +++ I bought a GX85 last month for 4K video, which cost me $500. It replaced an 10 year old Canon HG21 HD camcorder that I sold for $200 on monday.
I wish the Pentax did 4K, and had no recording time limit. Even on a D850, I believe there is still a 30 minute limit. I believe Sony and Canon are the same. There may be other limits that kick in earlier in terms of file system or overheating. I I do long practice takes (>30 min) and I can't miss one frame. Panasonic is the only one I can see that is addressing the 30 minute limit in 4K. If I had a higher budget, I would have bought a GH5S which can shoot 4K/60 with no time limit.
But for $500, GX85 meets most of my needs, other than lacking IR remote capability, and the screen not being able to fully adjust, like my camcorder could. That HG21 camcorder was also $1000 9 years ago ...

In terms of video, I did a shootout with 5 cameras 2 weeks ago.

Pentax K-30 was worst.
Next was my Canon HG21 . This is what I have shot all my Youtube videos with for the past 9 years, and it met my needs as an HD camera, though there was visible noise due to the small sensor.
Next was K-1 II .
Then Samsung Galaxy Note 8. It shoots good 4K, and the above 3 cameras don't.
And finally Panasonic GX85 was the best, also in 4K.

Video shootout is at https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/75-video-pentax-hdslrs/353364-mirrorless-4k-video-option-pentax-lenses-6.html , if you care to see .

IMO, the combo of K-1 II for stills and GX85 for 4K video with no recording limit is a great one, but value I could find as a hobbyist.

If Sony didn't have a 30 min recording limit, and less expensive/more available lenses , I would have likely gone with a single Sony body instead. Would be nice to have 4K60 in a Sony as well some day, which Panasonic has in GH5S.

Intense ransom demands, bro. You forgot the French fries!

And here's more

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=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=102400&attr16_3=102400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=607&x=-0.31832196580398026&y=0.6397909407665506

Look at Pentax K-1 Mark II has bigger color gamut, K-1II files have more lumina and chroma noise. It is easier to pull back saturated colors than boost the pale colors. And that is fine because it could give us raw files that are better tweakable than the undersaturated files.

@dpthoughts since you are seem to be so obsessed of using the beard as an example. So here it is for you

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=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=102400&attr16_3=102400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=607&x=-0.8856395403157994&y=-0.3218815331010451

Now my request to DPreview is to revise the review since the "cooked RAW file" was clearly explained and presented showing its disadvantage so I like to see in the revision showing the advantage of Pentax K-1 MKII cooked RAW file, showing its strength and where it shines. And that would be an unbiased review.

Cheers!

"It is easier to pull back saturated colors than boost the pale colors."

No, it's actually exactly the opposite.

Expanded color gamut? Did you measure it? Also, color gamut makes little sense when it comes to digital cameras - you can define whatever gamut you'd like based on the transformation of device specific colors to LAB color space.

Also, in your face crops, the K-1 II has the least color and least detail, so again I have no idea what you're referring to as 'wider gamut'.

Rishi,
Would agree with those statements in general.

However, I would abstain from making any conclusions regarding this face.

1) We have been told by DPR staff that we are only supposed to look at the center of the studio shot, so why look there ?

2) more seriously, the scenes being shots are different, in this very man. If you look at the head hair, it is a different color between K-1 and K-1 II, and also between D850 and D810 .

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=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=607&x=-0.8836774736055313&y=-0.05927987447599063

If the subject is different in the head, it's not hard to imagine that the lower part (beard) might have some differences as well. This voids conclusions regarding color.

@rishi You know better than me and you know what I mean. The colors I'm referring to is the dynamic range the less noise. Of course D850 and A7RIII has more colors that's because of the noise but these are noise colors. To illustrate this again, let's compare using ISO 102400 (Max of D850)

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=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=102400&attr16_3=102400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=607&x=-0.0002802952443241275&y=-0.007735191637630496

D850 noise is high and K-1 MKII noise is low and is still showing dark areas pretty well. Regardless of who has the most number of colors it is obvious which is showing more pleasing to the eye.

As noted on the studio page: There is no ACR support for K-1 II Raw Pixel shift files as of present. We will add them when we have support. Pixel Shift JPEGs are there.

People use PS all the time for landscapes. Tony's review
was mostly fair, but overlooked the value of PS (which often requires additional processing to deal with motion).

@dpthoughts, why bring in another review, thereby bypassing the intent of my question? I never mentioned landscapes but specifically indicated a studio scenario where the K-1 series has a built in advantage.
You bring to mind a Churchill quote, namely, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

@dpthoughts Actually, Pentax's own software can correct for movement in pixel shifted images. But you'd have to alter your workflow.

@Robbie do you really think you can have reasonable discussion with a guy claiming that he lives in Antarctica, has listed K-1 II as his previous gear, and writes such ignorant statements as "for Pentax, it is JPEG-only, and the crispness illusion comes from a special in-camera sharpening. the actual pixel shifting is just to pave the grounds for that a little (esp. noise reduction)."? This guy is a known troll.

I don't claim bribes and agree with most of DPR conclusions. I just would like you to back up your claim that Pixel Shift Resolution effect is just special in-camera sharpening and noise reduction.

Polish lab-test site tested K-1 Pixel Shift RAWs developed in DCU with Imatest and found no signs of sharpening.

I thought you meant noise reduction in the same way the accelerator unit present in K-1 applies it.

Anyway, by DPR's own words: "The multiple sampling of the same scene effectively gives a 2EV dynamic range boost, meaning it out-performs both the D810 and the 645Z by a comfortable margin. Less noise (though multiple captures) and multiple 14-bit values at every pixel mean it can give outstanding levels of DR for static scenes where you can use the Pixel Shift mode."

DPT..Pure BS. The amount of time you spend doing that with the 850, a K1II user could just as easily be sharpening a "soft image".

The K1 can output a PS raw file. There is now motion compensation to eliminate areas of motion in multiple exposures. You obviously have never used a K1 or K1II. But this is the nonsense we see here more and more at DPR, gear head nerds instead of photographers.

To the long-suffering DPreview team: would any of this stuff show on a print? even a large one?

@ozturet. Your visual impression doesn't make it so. The X-A3 can produce raw without NR. Here's the PhotonsToPhotos Read Noise curve for that camera:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#FujiFilm%20X-A3_14

Note the line is pretty straight; there is no drop in noise,
I also see nothing in the 2D Fourier Transforms I inspect.

My Pentax K-1 Mark II came with Firmware 1.01. I pre-ordered the camera and got it in the first week of U.S release. I do not know whether Pentax released the camera with Firmware 1.00. Also, I do not see any firmware download for K-1 Mark II

My camera came with 1.01 on it, and I've had it for almost a month.

Mine also has firmware 1.01. Got it last week.

https://pentaxrumors.com/2018/03/28/pentax-k-1-mark-ii-dslr-camera-already-shipping-first-review-published-online/

This is from a European site who received the K-1 Mark II in March (it started shipping couple of weeks early in Europe)

This also shows that the Pentax released the camera with firmware 1.01 from day-one itself. If DPREVIEW tested with firmware 1.0, there may be some differences. So, far the answer is not very clear from DPREVIEW (whether the testing was performed with firmware 1.01 or 1.0)

I don't want to use a computer, I want to make photography with a camera.

@skorpionet So you shoot JPEG then?

@dpthoughts: But this is all hypothetical to you isn't it? You don't seem to take any photos worth sharing and have no equipment list to speak of, so what exactly do you bring to the debate other than incessant trolling?

I probably could post this scene crop all day for those who are blind against the K-1 II RAW blurring ;)

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_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=607&x=-0.8699744176825767&y=-0.30174582681376927

The detail loss, as RAW increases, has been verified statistically / mathematically by now as well.

Mind though that the RAW blurring algorithm can be seen as a cheating algorithm, and as such it may not be 100% predictable and may behave differently on different scene items. E.g. somewhat reducing blur strength if it sees certain structure patterns. That's imaginable, I didn't check that.

I like the beard portrait because its delicate noise-like structures make cheating so difficult.

dpthoughts you mean all that noise you are mistaking as sharpness? The K-1MKII image is more detailed because there is less noise.

Post the scene of the coins at ISO 12800. Which holds more detail? Set up the scenes I suggested while your at it. It is very clear which is best at all ISO levels. As ISO levels increase the K-1MKII increasingly gets better against all three cameras.

No, the K-1 II sensor is pretty old, the same as the Nikon D810.

You don't see a noise advantage, but denoising along with inevitable colateral blur damages.

If you want superior noise behaviour in an organic way, rather than through K-1 II cheating, then you must buy a camera with a BSI sensor (back-side illumination), and dual-gain pixel amplifiers.

Sony does that for example for their III models. the Nikon D850 has BSI as well, but not dual-gain yet. Still shares the top benchmark position with Sony at DxO.

dpthoughts that is what you have been led to believe but the Ricoh Accelerator Unit has changed all that. The visual evidence is clear using the DPR Studio Scene how much better the K-1MKII is over the K-1, A7II, and D850 when ISO increases.

dpthoughts set it up to show part of the center but include the grey tone from the DPR logo as well so there is white black and grey. When you increase ISO step by step it is abundantly clear the K-1MKII is holding better continuous tone. It is also holding better value as ISO increases.

DPR's own visual evidence completely contradicts their claims in this review.

The 77 limited was released in 1999, the DFA 50 Macro first production date was 2004. The Nikon is 2012, while the Sony is 2017. Are we comparing apples to apple here? Why not wait for the DFA*50 1.4 and retest.

dpthoughts I think you need to make an appointment at your nearest optometrist.

dptroll,

Re: your beard example : again, I am not seeing anything unsatisfactory with the K-1 II or K-1 pictures in that link of yours. The D850 and Sony pictures are sharper in the beard, but that's expected for cameras that have 50MP and 42MP, vs the 36MP of the K-1 and K-1 II . Those Nikon and D850 cameras also cost 60% more. I'm sure if the K-1 II cost >$3000, it would feature a sensor of with more than 36MP. It doesn't make too much sense to compare bodies that have a 60% difference in cost.

Also, go to ISO 100 :
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=-0.8909031292587704&y=-0.29247753413084243

Compare with ISO800 , which has the NR from the accelerator. Show me the blur.

dptroll,

Why bring the D810 into this ? Do you really want to compare a 2014 camera against a 2018 camera ? Do you think the 36MP is all there is to it ?

Let's humor the troll.

The D810 still costs $2800, 40% more than the K-1 II, and both have identical 36MP resolution. One has in-body SR, the other does not. One has PixelShift, the other does not. One tops out at ISO 51,200, the other at ISO 819,200 . One also gives you weird colors even at ISO 100.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1ii&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=nikon_d810&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=compare&widget=607&x=-0.683640100906288&y=0.20810688510589084

Even if the price was the same, I would still choose the K-1 II.

"The 77 limited was released in 1999, the DFA 50 Macro first production date was 2004. The Nikon is 2012, while the Sony is 2017. Are we comparing apples to apple here? Why not wait for the DFA*50 1.4 and retest."

If Pentax users have to wait for future lenses to get expected results out of their system, then that's a problem, isn't it? Making our results probably more valid than the hypothetical results of some future lens few are likely to own...

dpthoughts: you're cherry picking here; when I move the comparison tool around the frame, the K-1 II looks a lot better than I expected from reading the review - in fact it looks pretty damn good, maybe the best overall (just my subjective opinion, of course). I think it's fair to criticize Ricoh for releasing such a minor upgrade, but it looks to me like this camera is much better than the review suggest. I probably won't upgrade my K-1, but if I was buying new I would pick the Mk2 without reservation.

I am hearing so many pixel peepers ...pixelgasms ...

@dpthoughts
DPReview staff have advised multiple times that image areas away from the centre should NOT be used for comparisons.

The K-1 II images show severe problems outside the centre and DPReview responded that this is not an issue because ONLY the centre portion of the test images should be used in order to reduce the impact of lens performance.

So please follow DPReview's instructions and refrain from referring to areas which DPReview did not quality control. As soon as DPReview used an adequate lens (not the FA 77/1.8 either) then you may be able to reference any image area you like.

dptroll,

Whatever sharpness issue you think exists with the beard at ISO 800 also exists at ISO 100 . There is barely any difference between the two. It certainly has nothing to do with noise reduction.

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=compare&widget=607&x=-0.8699744176825767&y=-0.30174582681376927

"@DPReview There have been reports that the comparison tool now delivers sharper K-1 II images than before."

It appears our readers can report whatever they please... Explains much of the commentary here.

Bottom line: I'm glad you now think our original images are somehow sharper than before...

Rishi,

The claim was not made without evidence. People have taken screenshots of your review tool, downloaded the files, and noticed the tool shows new file sizes, and different output.

Please review :

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/365652-k-1ii-review-opportunity-get-banned-dpr-14.html#post4277765

I would embed an image if this comment section allowed it.

@Rishi Sanyal
As madbrain pointed out there is evidence that the files have changed. The size of a JPG file, for instance has changed from 29.5MB to 32.4MB.

Are you saying the person who pointed this out and posted a respective screenshot (see madbrain's post) has manufactured this?

Also note that I never said I "think" your "original images are somehow sharper than before". Could you please try to be more accurate in the future?

I understand that you have to deal with a lot of indiscriminate posters but I take exception with the idea of being thrown into one bag with them. Perhaps try to read less comments, if you cannot remain fair and respond without a snarky tone.

I downloaded, processed and examined some of the raw files a few days ago, and compared them to the ones visible through the comparison tool. I used ACR with no sharpening or noise reduction. I found that the K-1 II ISO12800 file was significantly sharper than the one on display on DPR, whereas the ones at other ISOs were very close, if not identical.

I have just made the same comparison, and the ISO 12800 file is now identical in sharpness to the one on DPR. My conclusion is that there was definitely some processing variation between the K-1 II processed jpegs originally shown (this was no surprise because there was not a natural progression through the ISOs), and that the ISO12800 jpeg (processed from raw) has definitely changed since.

@Rishi Sanyal
Please consider the viewpoints presented by madbrain and jonby.

I'm sure there is an explanation for this that does not involve readers imagining things.

If you can confirm that indeed previously softer JPGs were used and perhaps RAW development settings had been incorrect, it would be most interesting to learn which versions were used to form your final verdict on the K-1 II's image quality.

Dear Rishi,

one more request for clarification on this point. I am among the many that noticed an image change on your comparison tool at 12,800 ISO (the one that you used to back your assessment on image quality in the review). It has nothing to do with our imagination, these are facts. Please do not ignore our requests. Thanks for your understanding.

Well, that'll teach me to comment while on vacation out-of-the-office. My apologies. Please see green text on the Image Quality page (one Raw file had a processing error in our workflow). Our conclusions remain unaffected, but we will revisit everything again once we've shot both the Mark I and Mark II cameras with the same exact lens copy (hopefully next week).

And, no, no JPEGs were changed. Neither were any other Raws save for the one with the processing error.

@Rishi Sanyal
I hope you realise that posting while "on vacation out-of-the-office" was not the problem.

I hope you realise that the real problem was to assume that readers were making wrong allegations and to respond without being in posession of the facts. I hope this will teach you the power of bias ("readers report what they want if they are angry") and the need to rely on what can be objectively determined. I hope you see the connection to testing.

I'm puzzled by the green text in the review because if "revisiting everything" had a chance of changing your assessment then why would you leave the current comments/verdict up? Shouldn't the content be retracted for the time being or be accompanied with a big caveat?

FWIW, I personally don't expect a different outcome next time but if the current data (with partially sharper results for the K-1 II) supports your assessment, why announce a "revisit" (instead of just more comparable shots)?

Finally, I hope you will ensure that the K-1 II shots will not become worse by using a new lens just two support a K-1 vs K-1 II comparison, because the shots will be used for comparison against other cameras. The goal is to improve the consistency of the K-1 II shots and bring the acuity of the K-1 shots to the same level, do you agree?

@Rishi Sanyal
I'm not assuming you have the worst intentions when it comes to Pentax. You are, again, fighting strawmen.

I do think that you are less familiar with Pentax products than with other products and that many at DPReview are big fans of mirrorless designs. I do believe that unconscious bias is at work when you evaluate, and particular describe, Pentax products. If you compare comments about camera weight, for instance, they have a different tone when they are levelled at a Pentax camera. This is not subjective. However, it is wrong for you to assume that I believe you have the "worst intentions".

I find it very odd that you state you will be "revisiting everything" just to cover your back with respect to potentially negative responses. Either you do think a re-shoot could change your overall evaluation, or you don't. Please don't pretend it could, when you already know it won't.

Again, personally I don't think a re-shoot will bring any new results.

Images. Image. What's the big difference? Why antagonizing your readers over it?
Pointing out mistakes is not the same as implying about intentions. OTOH denying and pointing fingers at others is the worst way of dealing with mistakes.

What's the big difference between only one incorrectly processed image vs. claiming all our images were wrong and replaced, therefore bringing into question all our image quality conclusions?

I'll let you answer that one.

"I find it very odd that you state you will be "revisiting everything" just to cover your back with respect to potentially negative responses."

We didn't say we'd 'revisit everything'. We said: 'We will, of course, re-visit the image quality commentary in our review as soon as we've been able to do this.' How can you possibly be offended by this statement?

"I do think that you are less familiar with Pentax products than with other products and that many at DPReview are big fans of mirrorless designs."

That's simply untrue. If anything, it's the opposite when it comes to DSLR vs. mirrorless - I know because I work here. Your assumptions of the opposite are precisely why I think you think there's an anti-Pentax bias here. You're right - camera weight isn't subjective, and the combination of extremely heavy modern Pentax lenses held even further out from the body makes the camera + lens generally feel heavier than many other competing systems. That's an objective fact.

@Rishi Sanyal
I'm not offended by your statement about revisiting the image quality commentary as such. I take issue with the notion of posting such a statement when -- according to your own earlier statement -- you know full well that a re-visit won't change your assessment. The latter are your words, not mine.

You misread my statement about subjectivity. I was referring to the fact that it is objectively observable that your use of language is less favourable when describing Pentax products, e.g., when it comes to commenting on camera weight. Even though there is only a 5g difference between the K-1 II and the Nikon D850, the language used for commenting on the K-1 II's weight is less favourable.

Besides, a hefty body can help stabilising a hand-held shot and a generously sized grip helps with handling bigger lenses, so I don't think it is balanced writing if the emphasis is on portability only.

Pentax 70-200/2.8: 1755g $1597
Sony 70-200/2.8: 1480g $2598

Pentax glass is criticised as "extremely heavy" and "expensive". I haven't read the same criticism levelled towards Sony. Note that the Sony lens is more expensive and only 275g lighter.

DPReview Pentax reviews also always emphasise the lack of modern lenses. Have you checked the full list of FF lenses available for Pentax? Are silent focus lenses really the be all and end all of photography? It is one thing to state that the silent focus lens line is still in development and another to imply that one's shooting options would be limited with a Pentax camera due to limited lens selection. The latter is simply not true.

Are your readers that complain about very pricey Sony lenses and a lack of choice among native Sony lenses wrong? I don't see that criticism in DPReview reviews. And no, the existence of adapters does not invalidate criticism regarding native lens options and pricing.

@Rishi Sanyal

If you think Pentax is receiving at least equal attention as other brands, how do you explain the following?

* many times, the fact that Pentax cameras have built-in image stabilisation has been added to the "Pros" only after readers point out that it had been missing.

* You evaluate Pixel Shift with inadequate software and even after correcting your mistake you still deem Pixel Shift as a niche feature. As soon as Sony does a (worse) implementation, it apparently suddenly loses the disadvantage of being practically inapplicable.
* An article explaining your recent flood of Sony articles fails to mention any recent Pentax innovation. They do exist. Do you know Pentax well enough to name them? If so, why was Pentax one of the very few brands that wasn't mentioned in that article?

* the lack of a dedicated AF point controller is a "Cons" for the K-1 but not for other cameras like the 6D II.

This list could be easily extended.

As for the 6D II, we wrote: "We've found it's entirely likely that you'll miss shots when the eight-way controller refuses to respond to your inputs - if only Canon had brought over the 5D IV's excellent joystick."

Of course we criticized its lack of an AF joystick, despite not using that exact wording in the cons. The reviewer - at the time - thought it enough to criticize the actual AF selection method when wrote the con: "Rear control dial is mushy and imprecise".

With this level of nit-picking, you can pick any of our reviews and build a case that we're biased against (or for) that brand.

Just make sure you're having fun while you're at it. :)

@Rishi Sanyal
This may be "fun" for you, as you obviously don't care whether you are harming a smaller manufacturer, intentionally or not.

I most certainly do not enjoy this frustrating dialogue in which you continue to display a snarky attitude despite having had your lesson about eating humble pie.

You chose not to respond to one of my major points regarding the inconsistent critique of lens line ups between Pentax and Sony. Your point about being able to build up any case of bias is a bad joke. The case regarding Pentax discrimination could be continued and couldn't be matched by how you report about Sony, for instance. I could counter most of your refutations but what is the point? You seem to be unable to properly acknowledge shortcomings in your work and accept valid criticism without constantly trying to belittle others as trolls.

If you don't realise what damage you are causing to Pentax with your omissions and other inadequacies, you have no business being a journalist.

This is very sad Class A. My comment about you at least having fun erroneously accusing us of bias was a simple wish: I at least hope you're having fun, b/c we certainly are not. The vocal Pentax crowd is simply doing our entire site a disservice, and worse: doing Pentax a disservice. We are now wasting hours of our editorial time to republish no changes to our conclusions, and Pentax users are now pretty well known for complaining about things that ultimately don't change the conclusions of our reviews at all (K-1 review anyone? K-3 review anyone? After all Pentaxian complaints, none of our results were actually contested).

Sorry I responded to all of your but one complaints: about lenses. Oh, but I did. It's not about silent AF. It's about actually usable AF. Pentax non-silent AF motors are stupendously behind all modern lenses. Modern Pentax lenses are far heavier than those of competitors: worse is that they're held out so far from the body they feel even heavier.

Oh, and that leaves out any discussion of Raw exposure. Sony cameras now allow you to perfectly expose your Raw files, thanks to Zebras and HLG. Where is Pentax here?

Where is Pentax in video AF?

AF generally? AF coverage? Usable speed of AF in low light?

Video quality? 4K? Slow-mo? HDR?

JPEG performance? Color? JPEG noise reduction and detail retention? Shareability?

Lack of mirror/shutter shock?

Like I said, if anything, we've overrated the Pentax K-1 II. Its noise reduction in Raw makes it impossible for you to tailor your NR in Raw using your favorite Raw converter without detrimental effects.

If anything, our reshoot has re-affirmed our initial position of the K-1 II.

If the camera works for you, that's great, and we're happy you've found a camera to suit your photographic needs. We have a target overall audience broader than you, and that's where Pentax falls far behind more capable competitors that can perform just as well for certain use cases, but better for others.

"If you don't realise what damage you are causing to Pentax with your omissions and other inadequacies, you have no business being a journalist."

If I actually cared what damage I was causing Pentax due to yet unsubstantiated omissions and inadequacies, THEN I would have no business being a journalist.

Perhaps you don't actually understand how unbiased journalism works. We do not care about the manufacturer.

Ironically, we care about you: camera purchasers. Not Pentax camera purchasers, but camera purchasers in general.

@Rishi Sanyal

I note:

You believe readers opposing to your omissions and errors are doing Pentax a disservice. Perhaps by that you mean to disclose that you cannot remain objective in the face of criticism? How else could Pentaxians trying to achieve parity in reporting could have a negative effect?

You believe correcting your methodological mistakes is "a waste of time". Don't do it, if it is a "waste of time". Don't blame anyone but yourself for "wasting your time", if you chose to do so. I support you in not doing it as you won't help the K-1 II with reshoots.

You are wrong in implying that all protests have been in vain. You repeatedly changed your reviews in significant ways in response to criticism by Pentaxians. I just point to the incorrect allegations regarding Pentax AF as a whole (vs AF-C) and your failed evaluation of Pentax Pixel Shift. The list continues.

@Rishi Sanyal

I further note:
You still don't understand that you are inconsistently criticising Pentax for a pricey and limited lens line up while not extending the same courtesy to Sony.

You decide what is important for a reader, even if you don't know their preferences. Perhaps there are people who prefer not to waste time removing aliasing artefacts that should not be there in the first place?

Your argument about lens ergonomics fails to recognise the inferior purchase one has on a small MILC lacking a proper grip. You fail to acknowledge that adapters shift the centre of gravity as well.

Modern high performing lenses are heavy. No way around that. The Sony 70-200/2.8 is not significantly lighter than the Pentax equivalent.

@Rishi Sanyal

I further note:

You are right when stating "Simply saying that 'adapters aren't acceptable' doesn't make it so."
Saying so, doesn't make adapters unacceptable. Adapters make themselves unacceptable due to matters of precision, cost, loss of functionality and substandard handling.

I can bear unbiased reviews. That's why I've been trying to improve your impartiality.

Pentax offers a lot of positives for a significant user base (which is larger than the number of users they are selling to). You'd do well to understand these positives instead of assuming that every camera needs to fit the design ideals that Sony chose for their line up.

Criticise the negatives -- I'm not denying that Pentax has deficiencies -- but do it consistently and don't get hung up about them as a certain user base just doesn't care about these aspects.

@Rishi Sanyal
I agree with you that "causing damage to a manufacturer" is indicated and in line with the responsibilities of a journalist, but only if the respective criticism is justified.

In the case of Pentax, however, you often inconsistently apply criticism (through omissions or otherwise). Moreover, you subject a product (a DSLR for stills photography) to metrics that are adequate for a different class of product (that aims to do very well at video and prioritises compactness over ergonomics).

You may be wanting to act in service of your readers but you only act in service of an admittedly large class of readers whose preferences align with Sony's design ideals.

Not everyone wants EVFs. Not everyone wants a small camera body to handle large lenses (like the Sony 70-200/2.8). Not everyone wants a sensor that runs full-time, etc. Can you acknowledge that?

You are confusing me with a Pentax fanboy, while I'm just asking for consistency and a broader mindset.

Forced noise reduction in Raw makes the end result less desirable than the original K-1 with NR performed in the Raw converter.

We've verified this.

Arguing against this is literally doing yourself disservice: you should be requesting of Pentax exactly what we've requested: making NR in Raw an option, if not turned off completely.

The reality is most high ISO noise is due to shot or photon noise. That can't be reduced using an 'Accelerator unit'. That's plain physics. You should be asking what exactly Pentax is trying to sell you.

The marketing around Dynamic Pixel Shift is telling: 'taking advantage of the shifts handshake causes'? Well you can do that with any camera, and worse: do it better, without the inexplicable artifacts Pentax' mode causes.

In our opinion, the Mark II is literally a worse camera than the Mark I, and in an ever evolving landscape, that makes its score plummet relative to the original.

Because everyone else has progressed, note regressed.

Oh, and a Pentax K-1 with a modern 15-30, or 24-70, or 70-200 are all nearly un-handholdable compared to a Sony A7 III with 16-35, 24-70, or 70-200 F2.8.

We know because we literally set these up side by side and tried them. Our assessment stands, and it's not just me. It's literally nearly every reviewer on the team. Don't agree? That's fine. But accuse us of unfounded bias? Please set up some torque arm measurements to disprove us, and we'll be happy to re-evaluate a finding that seems plainly obvious to us: that comparable Pentax body+lens combos are far clunkier and feel far heavier than comparable combos from other brands.

Because physics: take even more weight and hold it even farther out, and it feels far heavier than simple weight considerations might lead you to belief.

That's not bias: that's common sense. Logic, even.

"You'd do well to understand these positives instead of assuming that every camera needs to fit the design ideals that Sony chose for their line up."

Here's where you discredit yourself entirely.

I don't care what Sony does. In fact I have umpteen complaints about Sony.

We evaluate based on photographic and videography needs.

Sony has been tackling them all head-first.

Guess what that means for their rating by our standards? They do well.

But not because they're Sony.

Because they're tackling real world, wide needs.

You mistake who we're aligned with. We don't care at all about manufacturers for the millionth time. It's overall needs of the community at large.

When one manufacturer does that well and therefore scores highly, it doesn't mean we're biased toward that manufacturer, it means that manufacturer is serving the needs of the user base we care about.

Surely that's not so difficult to understand? Know how many years we were accused of being anti-Sony?

We still are...

"You believe correcting your methodological mistakes is "a waste of time". Don't do it, if it is a "waste of time". Don't blame anyone but yourself for "wasting your time", if you chose to do so. I support you in not doing it as you won't help the K-1 II with reshoots."

So your opinion as to whether or not we should do the reshoot is whether or not it will 'help' the K-1 II?

Well, that directly speaks to your bias.

We're only reshooting so users can directly compare the K-1 to the K-1 II at any given ISO, at any point in our scene. We didn't actually need to reshoot to come to the same conclusion we come to after reshooting: that the K-1 II forced NR comes at a detail cost, and the introduction of new unwanted artifacts at high ISO that only become accentuated when you apply additional NR in your favorite Raw converter.

We literally have no reason to reshoot the K-1 II (not to mention the K-1), but we're doing so to help you, our readers, come to the same conclusions we have.

We didn't need to reshoot because we intelligently only used the portions of the scene that started out with at least similar, or higher, contrast / sharpness to the original K-1 - thereby allowing us to assess the effects of the forced mandatory Raw NR regardless of certain off-central portions of the scene being softer due to the lens.

Make sense? I don't know how we could be any clearer.

Just like with the original K-1 review, where many of you were unhappy that we chose to initiate focus on the rider's chest or leg as opposed to his face: our reshoot only appeases Pentaxians who need to find something to complain about. It doesn't change any of our conclusions.

Every first iteration of a Pentax review is a 'debacle'. Our reshoots end up proving we were right to begin with, but it's still remembered as a 'debacle'. Even from before I joined the team.

It's sad, really, b/c every time we end up retesting, we get to the same conclusion. Almost like we were right to begin with...

this man is really strange:
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=800&attr16_1=800&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=800&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=607&x=-0.8859979624830999&y=-0.06077021705767171

Same there, of course: The details ranking is still:
1. Nikon D850
2. Sony A7rIII
3. Pentax K-1
4. Pentax K-1 II

The differences between the A7rIII and K-1 I are very subtle though. Hard pixelpeeping. Yes, already the K-1 I is worse than the Sony, but only very subtly. The K-1 II is the one really falling behind, and the Nikon D850 the one really standing out.

However, having (or wanting to have) 36 megapixels is only all about pixelpeeping (or super micro detail peeping). There is no other mission attached to 36+ megapixels.

For those which find that absurd and irrelevant, for those is having 36 megapixels absurd and irrelevant ;)

This rank is a your opinion. You can't compare 42 vs 36, then exclude D850 and a7R III.
Here the 36mpx group:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1ii&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=sony_a7r&attr13_3=nikon_d810&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_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=607&x=-0.8859979624830999&y=-0.06077021705767171

My opinion? K-1 II wins

ahahha "I also recognized, that you secretly "downgraded" the Sony model to the old A7r"

please reread my comment with "You can't compare 42 vs 36, then exclude D850 and a7R III"

TLDR; I think a pixel peeper is now having..pixelgasms

"...all about pixelpeeping (or super micro detail peeping)..."

micro-gasm, maybe

so it's micro-cringe then...

dptroll,
There is zero evidence of detail loss at higher ISO in the K-1 II that is worse than the K-1 . Please post two links of the same area at different ISOs. I'll wait.

For all the links you have offered as "proof", when I switch back to ISO 100, there is just little noticeable difference. The best you can say is that higher MP cameras have more sharpness. Duh! Your links don't in any way provide evidence of visible damage by NR algorithms in the K-1 II.

@dpthoughts, compare the newly uploaded ISO12800 shot, the Sony A7R3 looks the worst:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61131047

I tend to look at moderately higher ISOs, the ones which are relevant. I don't even look at absurd ISOs, these are the domain of fanboys which never photograph in real life.

For ISO=800, the K-1 II is the worst by far, but the K-1 shot is also substandard. None can compete with Nikon's nor Sony's test scene rendering.

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_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=607&x=-0.8542311438198034&y=-0.3014318675557448

dptroll,

Actually, the higher ISOs are not absurd. I have shot thousands of pictures at night in low-light at ISO 3200 and 6400 with my K-30 over the years. And I look forward to shooting many thousands more at 12800 and 25600 on the my 1 II. Even 51,200 looks usable if you don't print too large or crop too much.

Honestly, I am not seeing anything unsatisfactory with the K-1 II or K-1 pictures in that link of yours. The D850 and Sony pictures are sharper in the beard, but that's expected for cameras that have 50MP and 42MP, vs the 36MP of the K-1 and K-1 II . Those Nikon and D850 cameras also cost 60% more. I'm sure if the K-1 II cost >$3000, it would feature a sensor of with more than 36MP. It doesn't make too much sense to compare bodies that have a 60% difference in cost.

Compare them with a body around the same price, like A7 III, D850, 6D Mark II.

Try again.

The K-1 is pretty overpriced. If you see the entire system, which includes lenses ;) By now, a D810+lenses would cheaper but better than K-1 I/II+lenses.

Because Sigma and Tamron gave up all hope on Pentax future, they don't supply their recent and great lenses any longer for Pentax K.
E.g. 1 (one) FF ART for Pentax, vs 14 for Canon.

So that the lens choice for pentax is mainly a lens museum, substandard performance with overpriced monopoly prices (especially all the old primes).

Because Ricoh seemingly can't do engineer decent lenses on their own, they have to ask Tamron to make them on their behalf. The two most important ones (15-30, and 24-70) are taken directly out of Tamron's shelf, and stripped down a little (optical stabilization removed).

I don't know about the other few new lenses. I think it is most likely and plausible, that these are designed by Tamron as well, but exclusively for Ricoh only. But that's speculative. I'd give it a 70% to 80% likelihood.

dpthoughts...didn't you have enough pixelgasms already? I bet you don't even own expensive lenses.

dptroll,

Funny you should mention lenses.

Did you know you don't have to shoot with brand new lenses on your FF camera ? Were you aware that plenty of inexpensive film-era lenses still work well on a 36MP sensor ?

And that every single one will be stabilized, even MF and ME lenses, or any lens from any mount you choose to adapt to your Pentax K-1 / K-1 II body , which means you don't need to spend as much money on fast, heavy or stabilized glass as you otherwise might ?

Were you cognizant that great high-ISO performance on Pentax K-1 / K-1 II make such heavy and expensive fast glass even less needed ?

Did it occur to you that people choose Pentax bodies because of these attributes, and precisely because they can achieve as good or better exposure for much less with a Pentax + lenses than a Nikon FF + lenses, or Canon FF + lenses, or especially Sony FF + lenses ?

@dpthoughts seriously you should stop take a moment and reflect on the amount of stupidity you post here. You show an amazing dedication at expressing your limited knowledge of the subject. Maybe quality doesn't work for you, try quality for a change.

Yours is inferior!
- No yours is!
- No, yours is sooooo bad!

You are not photographers... sadly.

But @madbrain, err.... if I understand correctly, you use older, cheap, plasticky AF zooms on a 36MP camera?

You sure that's wise?

It's probably not what I would do.

My K-1 II does just fine optically with an old film-era FA50/1.4, or even DA50/1.8. The later is an APS-C lens but actually works fine in crop mode. These may not be modern lenses, but they work fine. I don't shoot test shots for a living with everything in the same focal plane, though, so can't really evaluate their uniformity. But nearly large part of the K-1 II images in the upper half seem blurred and out of focus, which seem like a problem with either the lens or focus/alignment.

Barney, it's great that you examined the sharp center area for your evaluation. However, after you posted your conclusions that the IQ was inferior in the K-1 II at higher ISOs, many many people went pixel peeping the images of each camera. And found that many parts of the K-1 II image were actually blurred. This is true regardless of ISO, so it has nothing to do with the body's noise reduction . Just look in the upper right quadrant. I have looked at many DPR reviews and can't find any modern DSLR camera tested with a lens with such poor uniformity, or poorly aligned/focused - whichever it is. I think it's really a disservice to your readers to post test shots with massive problems such as these, even if those blurred parts didn't factor into your conclusions. People who will want to verify them who look at your test shots will look at all parts of them, not just the sharp center.

" Just look in the upper right quadrant."

No - please don't. For reasons already explained ;)

Barney, it's not me you need to tell that to, but just about every reader who read your review and is pixel peeping the two cameras. You only need to look at the comments in this forum. Time after time, commenters are reaching conclusions about lack of sharpness that are due to looking in those areas.

I have yet to see a single comment from someone looking in the sharp areas and commenting that the NR makes the picture look worse than the K-1 at high ISOs.

@madbrain
Not a Pentax user for fan by any means, but just happen to be reading this article.

I agree in general pixel peepers look at the whole picture and never just look at the center. In particular I know that for low light detail, people tend to look at the feathers and grass sections nearer the corners of which the K-1 II looks significantly more blurred (even at ISO 100 where NR should play almost no role).

The article should make it extremely clear that the two test scenes were shot with different lenses with one significantly less sharp in the corners (and perhaps even some differences in center). Otherwise it's quite a bit misleading as the reasonable assumption by most people would have been that the same lens was used and differences are all from the sensor processing.

@Barney Britton
Why do you make the full image available for inspection if people are not supposed to use anything but the centre portion?

The comparison tool description provides no hints regarding the notion that anything outside the corner is not quality controlled by DPReview.

There is no caveat regarding the fact that different lenses are used either. Note that a lens like the Sigma 70/2.8 exists in multiple mounts and could thus eliminate differences regarding t-stop, field curvature, etc.

Class A,

Agree in general, but using the exact same lens for all cameras may not make sense. Most users will be shooting with native lenses, not third party lenses which may have neither AF nor auto exposure when using adapters. I know the DPR camera exposure settings are manual, so AE isn't an issue for the test. Not sure if the focusing is done manually by DPR or automatically with AF. If AF is no good, then that's a sign of a problem with the lens. Lens AF adjustments can be made in camera if one wants to use AF for shooting tests. If that still doesn't work, then the lens is just out of spec and shouldn't be used.

Anyway, the shots should definitely quality controlled not just in the center. If more than 50% of the image is soft and with parts blurred or plain out of focus, that's a sign that something is really wrong with the optics, and the images shouldn't be posted without at least trying other lenses.

Even within the same mount - ie. Pentax K - the same lens will have a different field of view between APS-C and FF, so you can't use the same lens one for each.

But if you are going to make sweeping statements like "camera X has worse IQ than camera Y", and they have the same mount and sensor size, you damn better use either the same lens or one comparable in quality (and by that, I don't mean use the same bad lens for each).

@madbrain

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the argument "Most users will be shooting with native lenses, not third party lenses which may have neither AF nor auto exposure when using adapters."

If the camera comparison tool is meant to support the comparison of cameras then it does not make sense to use different lenses. Native lenses make sense for galleries, but they don't make sense for a tool meant to compare cameras.

The Sigma 70/2.8 Macro supports AF on all systems and in any event such test shots should be manually focussed.

On that subject, I don't understand why the FA 77/1.8 shows so much purple fringing. The lens is prone to do that near wide open, but I don't think it should do that stopped down and normally purple fringing requires a bit of misfocus. I haven't tried to use the FA 77/1.8 as in such circumstances but I'm wondering whether it could have performed better with different settings/focus.

I thought you were suggesting to use the exact same lens on all systems for testing, not a different version of the same lens model made for each mount. Ie. use the exact same copy and optics. That would necessarily require adapters, except for the camera system for which the lens is native.

I'm not familiar enough with all the different types of mounts, but in general Tmount lenses can be adapted to just about any camera for example. Canon can be adapted to Pentax, but you lose AF and AE. Pentax can be adapted to m4/3, but you lose AF and AE. Not sure what is the "most universal" type of lens. But this isn't what you were discussing.

I didn't notice the purple fringing, but didn't look for it carefully either. I have never owned the FA 77 or the Sigma 70/2.8 .

I think in general, you want to test with a quality lens. Not a perfect lens, since none exists, but something that makes sense for the camera type. But not lens that's so clearly inferior to what was used in previous tests.

We once tried a 3rd party lens, getting copies for all mounts, only to find that it stopped down its aperture to slightly different degrees based on mount.

It's just not as simple as some here would make it out to be.

Regarding the question of why we make our whole studio scene available for analysis if not all parts of it are sharp: because our scene is not just a sharpness test. It also assesses color, noise, noise reduction, etc. Every test has its limits and flaws, and being aware of them means you can still draw many valid conclusions from imperfect data.

I wonder if you also think we should limit portions of the Sony a7R III shots to only allow viewing of sharp regions? I doubt it. We work within the limits of our tests, & there are still valid conclusions you can draw despite different portions of the scene being softer or sharper for various cameras.

There are limits to our tests. We'll be the 1st to admit it. We're improving processes, but there'll always be limits.

"@Rishi Sanyal We once tried a 3rd party lens, getting copies for all mounts, only to find that it stopped down its aperture to slightly different degrees based on mount."

This would make a very interesting article on its own, IMO. Thanks.

@DPR:
I'm afraid you cannot stop people from looking at the upper-right corner.
You're publishing the entire image; any part of that image, and usually the part with the largest differences, will be used for comparing "cameras".

Also, you had no warning about a large part of the images being useless.

@Rishi Sanyal

How many third party lens models did you try? One model showing irregularities does not invalidate the approach. Also, the minor deviations created through varying apertures should create a lot less variance than you have currently. Have you measured the t-stop (not f-stop) differences between all the OEM lenses?

You wrote "It's just not as simple as some here would make it out to be." I'm not sure who claimed anything is "simple". It is not that hard, though, to improve on your standards.

You wrote "...our scene is not just a sharpness test."
Do you realise that it is used as one? There is no disclaimer whatsoever associated with the tool. I don't know how you can pretend to be unaware of all the invalid conclusions people are drawing from the tool. Plaster it with disclaimers and caveats and then you may avoid some of the issues. Currently, it is a huge mess.

You wrote "There are limits to our tests. We'll be the 1st to admit it. " Sadly, that is simply not true.

@Rishi Sanyal
I don't know whose arguments you are trying to refute, but they are not mine. I never said you need to attain perfection, use optical collimators to identify the "perfect" lens, or anything like that.

I only said, it is not that hard to improve on your current standard, in this case, to avoid the significant issues you had with the lens on the K-1 II. You don't need to invest "millions of dollars" to simply reject a lens that obviously performs badly.

Why not delay the publication of a review if your distributor or Ricoh cannot provide a decent (no need for perfection) copy immediately? If readers are asking why it is taking so long to get the review out, simply point to your trouble with sourcing an appropriate lens copy.

"I've seen enough conclusive evidence in other tests and in contributions to this discussion to confirm that the fault lies with focus. Most likely a defective lens but maybe even an error in the set up."

This is untrue. If anything, the K-1 II has a slight advantage in our test setup compared to the K-1 since the 50mm macro is the sharper lens (in the middle, where it counts, and where we actually look when we make our analysis).

Great ! I hope you can reveal what they tell you. Many have speculated about whether the accelerator could or could not be turned off in a firmware update. Since it seems to only be in effect at ISO >640, and ISO is a setting that can be changed by the user, I would think so. The question is whether they will consider it a defect or not. IMO, after your review, it certainly makes sense to make it conditional, ie. apply it after a user-configurable ISO threshold rather than a fixed one. Though personally, I have to say I like the cleaner images of the K-1 II. I have never gotten results as good using noise reduction in post. Those usually blur the images. And the K-1 II high ISO images - at least lower part of the images - do not look blurred to me, even at 100% crop.

All raw file data is processed, and noise reduction on-chip is a part of this. There is nothing such as "true light" or "untouched signals".

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle guarantees we can't measure the signal without affecting it but that effect would be pretty small :-)
There's a big difference between what is done to an individual pixel and what we normally call "noise reduction".
Correlated Double Sampling (CDS), noise shaping, and other techniques are applied at the pixel level; and are welcome.
But consulting neighboring pixels to reduce noise always results in a loss of spatial information and that should be up to the photographer; not "baked in".

@veroman. Only about 1/3rd of the camera I have tested do NR when it is not asked for; so that's no surprising or even an exception.

One third? Wow ... that's a large percentage. More than I imagined. One out of every three!

A quick peek at your Gear List shows that you are not much concerned with the aesthetic of your camera.

Pentax will think, that ignoring the issue is the best solution.

Just like the mass failures with the "SDM" focusing motors of their most expensive lenses some years ago.

Turning off noise reduction in the menus has no affect on noise reduction applied to Raw files, only JPEGs.

The D850 is a professional tool.
Its battery life alone is 1840 shots, rather than the K-1 II's 670.

FPS: The D850 does 9 frames per second, the K-7 II not even half of that, with lame 4.4 FPS.

So the K-2 II is in many respects just "a fraction" of a D850. For that performance characteristics, it is just way to big. For the K-1 II market segment (hobbyists) probably unecessary and unwelcome.

Once Pentaxians were so proud of their APSC cameras not being big hogs, and I could totally follow their thinking regarding weight and size.

Like I fully understand today the reasons why many go to mirrorless (Fuji or Sony) (or even Olympus and Panasonic). Same thing. E.g. quite many Fuji users had fullframe DSLRs before, but eventually got tired of the bulk & weight penalty.