"Harubeni" Samples

See:  https://twitter.com/ricohimaging_jp/status/1633634970702061568?s=20

for the newly released firmwares of K-1/II, K-3 III and KF.

Btw, "Harubeni" means the red colours of Spring.

More Information about the Priced Gradual ND Digital Filter (for K-1 and K-1 II)

Now it is put on sales at the Japanese Ricoh online store (Google English translation of the page Here).

It is learnt that Serial Number of the camera shall be provided for the purchase of the license key for unlocking the function. The key is not portable across different bodies and one key is solely for one unique camera body. Besides, it should be noted that product keys for the K-1 and K-1 II are different. The price of the product key (without tax) is in Japanese Yens 10k.

Upon purchase of the key, Ricoh will send the buyer a QR code which the camera will read the code to unlock the function. It says it takes from several days to one week for Ricoh to generate and send back the code to the buyer. It seems that everything is being processed manually. The worst thing is that if the consumer has entered the wrong serial number of his/her camera, Ricoh will not be responsible for it and the correct code will not be resent?! :-|

As for the operation of the function, read the Chinese article here. The working principle is also briefed in the article.

In short, the camera takes two consecutive photos according to the maximum Exposure Value  (EV) difference. The camera will then process the photos and clone them into one with the selected gradual ND pattern. And, the pattern of dark/bright sections could be set by the user. It is recommended that the user should put the camera on tripod when using this function.

The EV range could be from 0.3EV to 5EV. Some example results are as below:

(1EV Grad ND applied with less exposure at the top)

(With and without Grad ND Filter, a 3EV difference applied)

After all, how about using the camera's built-in HDR function to solve the problem, which is free of charge? ;-)

Seasonal Firmware Updates for K-1 bodies and K-3 III

https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/digital/k1.html

https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/digital/k-1-2.html

https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/digital/k-3-3.html

And, according to Pentax Rumors, further updates with new custom images by theme will be delivered quarterly.

But what I really can't understand why any Pentax user needs to have particularly lenses in order to use those new Custom Images. It doesn't make sense at all unless Pentax wanted to promote their stocked lenses with such an inferior means.

Why Pentax Has Failed at Mirrorless?

See what PetaPixel says about the failure of Pentax in the mirrorless market, despite the efforts paid in the past two decades.

By the way, for what PP has listed out for the 37 interchangeable lens digital cameras wich Pentax has ever produced, I have bought more than one-third of all the models as follows:

From 2003 to 2021: My Pentax APS-C bodies acquired: *ist D/DS/DL2, K-100D, K-m, K-x, K-r, K-5, KP and K-3III, total 10 out of the 29 models produced.

From 2011 to 2014: I bought the original Q and the Q7, hence 2 out of 4.

From 2016 to 2021: I got the K-1, but I don't think Pentax has really produced 2 full-frame bodies as the K-1 II actually is just a mild variant of the original K-1.

From 2010 to 2014: I purchased the 645D, 1 out of 2 for the medium format bodies.

So, I acquired a total of 14 Pentax models out of the 37 that they have produced.

Besides what PP has mentioned about the causes the failure, which I generally agree with, I think from the user's perspective and practical point of view, the K-01 and the Q series failed in two major ways, which are the lack of EVF and fast Wi-Fi support. I consider that these are basic essential features nowadays, especially for mirrorless cameras and for easy social media sharing on-the-go. All in all, the external LCD monitor is really rather difficult to view under bright light environment outdoor. Without an EVF, it is indifferent to shoot blindly and composition and shooting have become rather difficult with such handicapped mirrorless cameras.

New Firmwares for K-1/II, K-3/II, KP and K-70

http://news.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/rim_info2/support/

To support better focusing operation for the three FA Limited lenses, include both the old and new versions. But it is unknown that if focusing speed and/or focusing accuracy is/are improved. I shall try it out anyway.

SAFOX 13 (in K-3 III)

Credit: Mistral75 @ DPR Forum

Legend:

Grey squares - Selectabe crossed AF points 

Hollow squares - Selectable linear AF points 

Small circles - Non-selectable linear AF points 

Btw, Mistral, where did you get this diagram? :-o It must belong to a product story later!  ;-)

Update (Nov 9): 

Mistral75 advised in his reply (via his latest comment below) that the above SAFOX 13 layout was a sensible guess based on the original official diagram showing cut-outs in the lines (as broken lines) of the finder marks and brackets, which was actually a collaborative work created among three members in the French CDI Forum.

To verify if this could be really true, I have made a new overlay diagram with their assumed SAFOX 13 with an official SAFOX 12 one. Note that with the new magnified APS-C viewfinder of the K-3 III, now the covered AF areas of the K-3 III and the K-1 are more or less the same, except the extreme peripherals:

My own wild guess Pentax has opted to keep the old SAFOX module and add/build new AF points based on the old AF module, since the number of crossed AF points remain unchanged, i.e. at 25 nos. 

In this connection, I don't think the above brand new layout is completely an accurate guess. Instead, a 5x5 crossed AF points surrounded by another 6x6 linear AF points in alternative / interlaced manner would be more sensible. As for the remaining linear 40 points, they can be put/added at the two sides as well as at the top and the bottom, surrounding the central part of the AF point crowd, making up a total of the 101 points, which are all visible and selectable in groups.

Besides, just for the sake of seeing what the SAFOX 12 would look like if it is yet put into the K-3 III, the following overlay diagram is also made:

Direct Comparison of D FA*85/1.4 against Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 (Tested in the Field)

A Pentax user at the Chinese Xitek Pentax forum shares his friend's sample photos for a direct side-by-side comparison made between the Pentax D FA* lens (put on a K-1 body) and the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 lens (put on a Panasonic S1R). Here we go:

(Left: Pana+Zeiss, Right: Pentax; Click to Enlarge in around 2000 to 3000 pixels in width)












EXIF data are partially preserved in the original samples in the original post. Despite that the Pentax pics tend to be darker (and the tester also made some exposure adjustment by himself for some pics) and that the Pana pics tend to be over-exposed a bit, the resolution of the Pentax lens seems to be better when the lenses are wide-opened but yet the Pentax Star lens does exhibit some obvious purple fringing at large apertures, however.

Btw, I prefer the colour rendition of the Pentax gear over the Zeiss on Pana combo. :-)

For other standalone samples of the D FA* lens (with key EXIF), they can be found in this post in the same forum thread. I just downloaded them all and have re-uploaded them here for fast and easy viewing:

(Click to Enlarge to around 2000 to 3000 pixels for the longer side, without EXIF)

Mapcamera Tested the D FA* 85 F1.4 (with Medium Sized Samples)

https://news.mapcamera.com/KASYAPA/588%e3%80%8ehd-d-fa%e2%98%85-85mm-f1-4-ed-sdm-aw%e3%80%8f/

(in Japanese, Google translated English page here)

Test camera body used was an upgraded K-1 to Mk II. Medium-sized samples in 11MP are available.

Measurbated: Psychological Hypothesis with Firmware Upgrade Proven :-D

Since some Pentax users suggested that new K-1 and K-1 II firmwares have improved AF, I have carried out a formal test and measurbation to find out the truth, as a renowned measurbator of camera gear, in particular, Pentax gear. :-P

My test procedures and methodology as follows:

1. A K-1 and DA50 F1.8 combo was selected and used for the test, i.e. same gear setup as claimed by one of the OPs for improved performance. ;-)

2. AF was carried out in a fairly lit room in about 300 lux, two objects were placed at about 1m and 3.5m respectively and AF was made on the two objects to and fro alternatively. This was repeated for more than ten times and the AF sound was recorded:

    (Click to Enlarge)

3. Measurbated the AF starting and completion times, right before the AF motor started to move and before the AF confirmation beep was sounded:

4. Input the times into an Excel table and calculate the AF time required (in second) for ten times of AF operations and take the average time and get the results. Here we go:



Left table contains the results with FW version 1.52 and the right one are those with FW version 1.51. Indeed, I cannot see any real and significant difference between the two. So, it's what psychological effect of people strikes again, case closed! :-D

New Firmwares of K-1/K-1 II Improve AF Performance Significantly?

Two experienced Pentax users at a Chinese Pentax forum reported (here, here and here) that the new firmwares have improved the AF performance and accuracy of their K-1 and K-1 II cameras a lot for their many different Pentax lenses and the difference has been obvious and significant.

Should this again be a hypothesis made owing to psychological effect? I would later on test myself to see if there is really any improvement as claimed. I believe that "measurbation" does help and will tell. Stay tuned. ;-)

What's Inside the Pentaprism Housing of the New APS-C Flagship?

Quick check of a few Facts:

1. Top of K-3 II, separate plastic top cover on pentaprism, with GPS button (at the left side) and function:

2. Top of K-1, integral top plastic cover, with GPS button (at the right side) and function:

3. Top of the New Flagship, looks like an integral metal top cover but without any GPS button (on any part of the body) and possibly no such function built-in:

So, what's the conclusion and my somehow wild but yet sensible guess? Something new is incorporated inside the Pentaprism housing of this new camera! :-D

And, it does quite make sense to accommodate this new facility with the large space made available:

Patent link: https://ipforce.jp/patent-jp-A-2018-151588

I believe more so it is a hybrid OVF/EVF finder with the existence of a new unmarked secret button at the rear top left (where used to be the playback button on the K-3 and K-3 II) plus a new infrared proximity sensor under the viewfinder, which is a standard design for automatic EVF/LCD on/off toggle switching for mirrorless bodies equipped with EVFs:

I hope it will happen. ;-) With this, it will be a meaningful breakthrough in truly combining a DSLR with a Mirrorless, so as to get the best of both worlds. And more importantly, old Pentax users will NOT need a new mount and the K-mount will continue! After all, we shall know before this Summer!


Last Related:

The New Sony APS-C Sensor

IR Tested the K-1 Mark II in the Field (Side-by-side ISO Test against the K-1, too)

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1-ii/pentax-k1-iiA.HTM#shooting2

1st Dead AF Report of the DFA*50/1.4

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4354286#forum-post-62128519

A DFA*50 F1.4 Hands-on, with Full Sample Photos

http://www.kennychi.com/lens-pentax-dfa-%e2%98%85-50mm-f1-4-sdm-aw-%e8%a9%95%e6%b8%ac/
(in Traditional Chinese)

With quite some samples, full original JPEGs available with EXIF at the linked Flickr. Some purple/green fringing can be seen at wide apertures, anyway.

Yet Another K-1 VS M2 IQ Comparison (Youtube)

https://youtu.be/JQKu972nvU8

I blog, you decide.

A Practical K-1 Vs Mark II Shootout (with Real Scenes)

http://blog.hisway306.jp/entry/2018/05/15/080000#K-1-Mark-II-vs-K-1-%E3%82%AC%E3%83%81%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B3%E5%AF%BE%E6%B1%BA
(in Japanese)

IMO, the images from the Mark II have dull colours as what DPR suggested. However, the resolution difference is not as huge, ditto for the noise difference.

PF Compared the Noise/Details of the K-1 and Mark II

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

"In JPEG mode the K-1 II has an edge, especially above ISO 12800.  At lower ISO settings, as we saw in the outdoor test, there is clearly less noise, but details are also slightly softer."

Yet Another Two K-1 Vs K-1 II Shootouts (of High ISO and PSR)

http://w3.ee/openarticle.php?id=2974753&lang=est
(in Estonian, Google translated English page here)

Whilst it is commented that the Mark II has lower noise and the pictures are brighter when compared with Mark I's, the tester does not provide any information on the exposure time values of his comparison test pictures.

A quick check on another earlier similar shootout test (in Chinese, machine-translated English page here), it is noted that the exposure times of the Mark II are often extended by 1/3 EV stop and hence the rated ISO of the Mark II should not be accurate and is actually overrated, hence resulting in brighter pictures with less noise. In fact, I have seen several shootout tests so far and have found the same.

K-1 II ISO Tests 100-102400 Vs Dynamic Pixel Shift Results

https://www.mikemuizebelt.nl/pdf/K1_markii_iso_steps_100-102400.jpg
(Composite test picture) 

https://www.mikemuizebelt.nl/pdf/K1_markii_iso_steps_100-102400_PSR_ON.jpg

(Warning: Large file in ~25MB each)

From my prolonged experience with the K-1, it seems that the high ISO performance improvement of the Mark II is only subtle at ISO 3200 and above. The handheld PSR could give higher resolution, though, when it works. However, noise will not be improved anyway in the PSR mode.

A New K-1 Mark II Practical Review

https://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail/25112/pentax-k-1-markii
(in Traditional Chinese)

Handheld pixel resolution and high ISO settings are tested. The result pictures are self-explanatory with simple legends.

In short, the handheld pixel resolution is a hit-n-miss game, I'm afraid. Sometimes, the outcome would be even worse. Besides, the improvement at high ISO values is not really significant. Subtle improvement could be seen, though, IMHO.