Pentax K-1 II Image Quality

Here at base ISO, we can see that the K-1 II's image quality is very similar to that of its predecessor's, apart from some minor differences in manual (custom) white balance which led to slightly warmer colors from the newer camera. Noise levels appear pretty much identical at ISO 100, but it'll be interesting to see how they compare at higher ISOs. Although the K-1 appears to produce slightly higher contrast in the red-leaf swatch, that's mostly due to some fading in that fabric over time.

The 36.4-megapixel Pentax K-1 II is able to capture a bit more detail than the 30.3-megapixel Canon EOS R here at base ISO. However the Canon offers higher contrast, better clarity and more accurate colors if slightly cooler color balance. The EOS R's sharpening haloes are a bit more obvious, though. Both cameras show some aliasing artifacts and moiré patterns, but keep in mind the K-1 II has an adjustable AA filter simulation (turned off for these), but the EOS R's OLPF is fixed.

Although the Nikon D810 has been replaced by the D850 (see below), we decided to include it here because it shares the same 36.4-megaixel resolution and maybe even a related sensor. As such, both cameras capture very similar levels of detail, but Nikon's processing produces a crisper-looking image. Contrast is noticeably higher from the D810, especially in our red-leaf swatch, as is aliasing in the form of moiré patterns, though fainter patterns can still be seen from the K-1 II (however as mentioned the Pentax has the option of enabling AA filter simulation which the Nikon does not). Colors are more natural and accurate from the Nikon.

As expected, the 45.7-megapixel Nikon D850 captures noticeably more detail than the 36.4-megapixel K-1 II. The D850 image is also crisper and more contrasty, though sharpening haloes are a little more obvious. Interestingly, noise appears a little higher from the Pentax, but keep in mind the Nikon's lower base ISO. Colors are more accurate and natural from the Nikon as well, and the default tone curve is more pleasing as well. Again, both cameras are OLPF-less and thus both show some aliasing artifacts, but the D850 does not offer AA filter simulation like the K-1 II does.

The 42.4-megapixel Sony A7R III is also able to capture more detail than the 36.4-megapixel Pentax K-1 II here at base ISO, while at the same time producing a much crisper image with fewer sharpening artifacts, higher contrast, and more accurate color in the pink fabric. Both show some aliasing artifacts here because of their OLPF-less sensors, but the Pentax has its unique AA filter simulation turned off for maximum sharpness, while the Sony doesn't offer that feature.

Here at ISO 1600, we do see lower noise levels from the K-1 II in flatter areas, however there appears to be a very slight softening of fine detail as well. A difference in noise appears in raw files as well, indicating it's likely the result of the K-1 II's added "accelerator unit" which we believe performs some noise reduction on raw data which can't be disabled. Although the impact to fine detail appears very slight, applying noise reduction to raw data is something we'd rather not see, or at least have control over.

The K-1 II still manages to resolve a bit more detail than the EOS R here at ISO 1600, however the Canon produces a slightly crisper, more contrasty image. Noise levels appear slightly higher from the Pentax, yet it really struggles to reproduce most of the fine detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch.

Noise levels appear a touch higher from the D810 here at ISO 1600, but the Nikon produces a much crisper image, though sharpening haloes are more evident. As you can see, the D810 retains a lot more detail in the red-leaf and pink fabrics, though moiré patterns are also more visible.

The Nikon D850 continues to produce a crisper, more detailed image here at ISO 1600. Noise appears a little higher from the Nikon in flatter areas, however the "grain" pattern is finer and tighter from the D850. Again, the Pentax really struggles with our tricky red-leaf swatch already here at ISO 1600, blurring away almost all of the pattern, while the Nikon does a much better job at retaining detail though again, with more visible moiré patterns.

The Sony A7R III continues to produce a crisper, more detailed image than the K-1 II here at ISO 1600, with better contrast and color too. The Sony also does much better in our troublesome red-leaf fabric while the Pentax smears most of the detail away. However the A7R III produces some unwanted artifacts in the form of a less natural noise "grain" pattern in flatter areas, as well as very dark or black individual or small groups of pixels in the red-leaf fabric, which results in a "peppered" effect.

Again, we see lower noise levels from the K-1 Mark II than from the Mark I here at ISO 3200, but at the cost of a slight reduction in fine detail. Some of the difference here in JPEGs can be mitigated by reducing high ISO noise reduction without a significant noise penalty, though, as the matching raw files don't show as much of a difference in fine detail as the in-camera JPEGs at default settings. However, a reduction in raw noise is visible, along with some minor noise reduction artifacts. Perhaps Pentax should have dialed-back default JPEG noise reduction a bit to help offset the impact of denoising raw data performed by the "accelerator", instead increasing max ISO by two stops which are too noisy for most purposes anyway.

The K-1 II is no longer able to resolve more detail than the EOS R here at ISO 3200. Luminance noise is higher from the Pentax, contrast is lower, and pretty much all detail has been flattened out in the red-leaf fabric.

The D810 appears to produce a sharper image with slightly higher noise levels than the K-1 II at ISO 3200, which does lead to more noticeable noise reduction artifacts from the Nikon in our mosaic crop. The D810 continues to produce much better renditions of the red-leaf and pink fabrics. Contrast is also somewhat higher from the Nikon, but sharpening haloes are more visible. Colors are more pleasing as well, giving the Nikon the overall edge here.

The D850 easily comes out ahead of the K-1 II here at ISO 3200, with a crisper, more detailed image with better color. Noise is still a bit higher than the Pentax, though.

The higher-resolution Sony A7R III continues to capture more detail here at ISO 3200, while producing a much crisper image with more accurate colors, however noise reduction artifacts are more visible making its noise "grain" look less like film than the K-1 II's. The Sony does much better in the red-leaf and pink fabrics where the Pentax has almost entirely flattened all detail in the reds.

As you can see above, the standard Pixel Shift mode (IS Off) images on the right capture a lot more fine detail with far fewer aliasing artifacts compared to single-shot mode, though they can appear noisier with individual pixels appearing slightly brighter or dimmer than the average brightness of neighboring pixels at low ISOs. Noise is also much more finely grained in PSR mode, but unfortunately PSR mode does little to improve detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch at higher ISOs.

The K-1 II features a new Dynamic or "handheld" Pixel Shift Resolution mode which uses the camera's IBIS system to also provide image stabilization allowing the camera to be handheld. As you can see above, it offers a slight improvement over the single-shot mode with better detail and a finer-grained noise pattern, but it's not nearly as detailed as the standard PSR mode. Note that these images were all taken on a sturdy tripod in the lab, so results when handheld may differ. See our Field Test Part III for real-world handheld samples and comparisons.

Above we compare the two main PSR modes. As you can see, the images captured with Dynamic Pixel Shift mode (above right) are not nearly as detailed as the standard PSR mode and they also appear noisier. However, they still contain better detail than single-shot images in most areas, but we found they tend to be more prone to image fusion artifacts such as stepped or toothed edges. This could be because Dynamic Pixel Shift mode uses the mechanical shutter, while the standard mode uses an electronic shutter and thus there are fewer vibrations to contend with. That's not to say the standard PSR mode can't still generate similar artifacts, though, as it's still sensitive to other vibrations. Again, be aware that these images were taken on a sturdy tripod in the lab, so results when handheld may differ. See Field Test Part III for a comparison of the PSR modes including with motion compensation enabled in real-world situations.