bjolester
Well-known
I photograph with both film and digital cameras. My favourite camera is the Pentax 67ii, and I shoot mostly colour slides and b&w. I scan my medium format film with an Epson V750, and the results are okay. However, every time I scan 135 film with my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, I become thrilled with the results. My 135 scans are in every way more pleasing than the medium format scans from the Epson V750.
The Pentax K-1 is soon to be released, and I have been reading a bit about dslr scanning. The pixel shift super resolution technology seems to be very useful also when it comes to scanning. Both the existing Pentax K-3ii and the soon to be released Pentax K-1 fullframe body feature the pixel shift technology, and are able to bypass the usual bayer sensor limitations and record full RGB.
Probably I am primarily trying to find an excuse to buy the new Pentax
, but I am also interested in improving my medium format scanning. The Epson V750 is very good, but I am feeling a bit underwhelmed every time I attempt to scan Velvia 50 or Provia 100F taken with my Pentax 67ii. No matter how much time I spend with the actual scanning and also work in Apple Aperture, the results, especially with chromes, are merely okay. The V750 is much better with colour negative film and b&w than with slide film, at least that is my personal experience.
So, do you think that a dslr scanning set-up using the Pentax K-1 and pixel shift could be a way to go?
BTW: I have a very good Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro in Pentax mount, would this be a good macro for dslr scanning?
I am grateful for any advice on this matter!
The Pentax K-1 is soon to be released, and I have been reading a bit about dslr scanning. The pixel shift super resolution technology seems to be very useful also when it comes to scanning. Both the existing Pentax K-3ii and the soon to be released Pentax K-1 fullframe body feature the pixel shift technology, and are able to bypass the usual bayer sensor limitations and record full RGB.
Probably I am primarily trying to find an excuse to buy the new Pentax
, but I am also interested in improving my medium format scanning. The Epson V750 is very good, but I am feeling a bit underwhelmed every time I attempt to scan Velvia 50 or Provia 100F taken with my Pentax 67ii. No matter how much time I spend with the actual scanning and also work in Apple Aperture, the results, especially with chromes, are merely okay. The V750 is much better with colour negative film and b&w than with slide film, at least that is my personal experience.So, do you think that a dslr scanning set-up using the Pentax K-1 and pixel shift could be a way to go?
BTW: I have a very good Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro in Pentax mount, would this be a good macro for dslr scanning?
I am grateful for any advice on this matter!
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I photograph with both film and digital cameras. My favourite camera is the Pentax 67ii, and I shoot mostly colour slides and b&w. I scan my medium format film with an Epson V750, and the results are okay. However, every time I scan 135 film with my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, I become thrilled with the results. My 135 scans are in every way more pleasing than the medium format scans from the Epson V750.
The Pentax K-1 is soon to be released, and I have been reading a bit about dslr scanning. The pixel shift super resolution technology seems to be very useful also when it comes to scanning. Both the existing Pentax K-3ii and the soon to be released Pentax K-1 fullframe body feature the pixel shift technology, and are able to bypass the usual bayer sensor limitations and record full RGB.
Probably I am primarily trying to find an excuse to buy the new Pentax
So, do you think that a dslr scanning set-up using the Pentax K-1 and pixel shift could be a way to go?
BTW: I have a very good Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro in Pentax mount, would this be a good macro for dslr scanning?
I am grateful for any advice on this matter!
Interesting. I scan my films using X-E1 and BEOON. Until I read this post, I'd forgotten my E-M5II got pixel-shift output as well. I must try this. Love to see what you find with K-1 scanning process as well.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I suspect you could get very good results, once you overcome the mechanical issues. However, I'd be inclined to try and build a setup that let's you 'scan' 6x7 using several stitched frames. Otherwise you'll probably still be falling short of what's on the slide.
Mike
Mike
bjolester
Well-known
The Pentax K-1 features a 36mp sensor. But with the pixel shift "super resolution" enabled, it should be able to capture images equal to at least 50mp in full RGB, at least that is what I have understood from reading hands on reviews on the net. Surely, a one-take 50mp "scan" of 120 film should be quite satisfactory. Maybe stitching frames is not necessary with the K-1 in pixel shift mode?
rscheffler
Well-known
Single frame capture will also result in a format proportion mismatch, where a fair amount of the K-1's sensor will be cropped to match the 6x7 proportions. Is that critical in reality? I'm not sure, since it will also crop out what should be the lower performing part of the lens's image circle (not familiar with the Kiron 105 and how good it is). Whether or not you stitch likely has as much relevance as what you do with the scans. I.e. how large you potentially print them.
Theoretically, a ~24MP capture (rough guess of 36MP cropped to 6x7 proportions, with additional lost pixels in the border area) should be enough for ~11x14" prints. Add in pixel shift and it's likely a bit more.
Oversampling is probably a good thing so that whatever digital artifacts there may be from the scan capture, they'll be insignificant to the analog grain of the source material.
Something to also look into, and maybe you already have, is how the K-1's files will play with end-of-line Apple Aperture. Even though the K-1's raw files are DNG, will the correct camera-specific color profile be applied? Will it correctly handle super resolution files?
I have no logical use for the K-1 given the systems I currently shoot with, but looking for potential purchase justifications, I also landed on the idea of using it to scan my analog archive due to its 'super resolution' mode. That said, the huge bulk of my archive is 35mm B&W, and of that, a large percentage is ISO 400 or faster film. It leaves me wondering if 36MP, let alone super resolution mode, will make any difference and is overkill for the majority of it. I might be better off to buy a cheap used NEX-7, or something of the like instead. That said, I have put together the hardware and the capture lens is 1:1 optimized because I assumed I would use an existing on-hand full frame sensor camera.
Anyway, I do think there is some merit to 'DSLR scanning' compared to low to mid-end flatbed scanning.
Theoretically, a ~24MP capture (rough guess of 36MP cropped to 6x7 proportions, with additional lost pixels in the border area) should be enough for ~11x14" prints. Add in pixel shift and it's likely a bit more.
Oversampling is probably a good thing so that whatever digital artifacts there may be from the scan capture, they'll be insignificant to the analog grain of the source material.
Something to also look into, and maybe you already have, is how the K-1's files will play with end-of-line Apple Aperture. Even though the K-1's raw files are DNG, will the correct camera-specific color profile be applied? Will it correctly handle super resolution files?
I have no logical use for the K-1 given the systems I currently shoot with, but looking for potential purchase justifications, I also landed on the idea of using it to scan my analog archive due to its 'super resolution' mode. That said, the huge bulk of my archive is 35mm B&W, and of that, a large percentage is ISO 400 or faster film. It leaves me wondering if 36MP, let alone super resolution mode, will make any difference and is overkill for the majority of it. I might be better off to buy a cheap used NEX-7, or something of the like instead. That said, I have put together the hardware and the capture lens is 1:1 optimized because I assumed I would use an existing on-hand full frame sensor camera.
Anyway, I do think there is some merit to 'DSLR scanning' compared to low to mid-end flatbed scanning.
bjolester
Well-known
Thank you for commenting, you point towards many interesting aspects with dslr "scanning".
The format proportion mismatch between 6x7 (70x56) and 2x3 (24x36) is one of the things I need to figure out how best to deal with. Maybe I need to take two or more shots and merge these in hugin or similar stitching software? Maybe it is a good idea to take two shots in portrait/vertical orientation? I have not much experience with such a workflow, so that is one of the most important things for me to check out.
The four images from a Pentax pixel shift photo are stored in one DNG or PEF file and need to be developed in the Pentax Digital Camera Utility (if one wants to shoot raw), and then exported in tiff format to Lightroom, Aperture or whatever photo editor one prefers. If shooting only jpeg, I believe that the four pixel shift images are merged to one jpeg in camera. Adobe Camera RAW supports Pentax pixel shift. I have read somewhere that Irdient Developer can also be used with the Pentax pixel DNG. I am not a Pentax K-3ii owner myself, so the things I write about Pentax pixel shift are only based on reading articles on the net, so I may have gotten some details wrong.
The Pentax K-1 is obviously a very desirable camera, especially for those of us who have a collection of Pentax glass already. In addition, there is the pixel shift super resolution mode, that promises high resolution with full RGB output. This looks like a very promising candidate for high quality dslr scanning.
bjolester
Well-known
I found a very interesting article today about the Pentax K-1 and pixel shift on diglloyd's blog, here is an extract:
"In theory the K1 Super Resolution mode offers the most potent advance in image quality in years: full “true color” RGB pixels. And so it is a compelling reason for me to review it, even with the sharp dropoff of interest in DSLR cameras. Properly implemented, the Pentax 36MP sensor used in Super Resolution mode should trounce the Nikon D810 and the Sony A7R II in image detail and noise (see Sony A7R II: Where is Pixel Shift?). However, one practical challenge is the selection of high-grade lenses.
Conventional sensors are monochrome (RGGB Bayer matrix typically), recording a single 12 to 14 bit value per pixel. The Pentax K1 Super resolution mode promises the first true-color full-frame sensor on the market, with reduced noise behavior as a bonus."
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2016/20160218_1331-PentaxK1-SuperResolutionMode.html
"In theory the K1 Super Resolution mode offers the most potent advance in image quality in years: full “true color” RGB pixels. And so it is a compelling reason for me to review it, even with the sharp dropoff of interest in DSLR cameras. Properly implemented, the Pentax 36MP sensor used in Super Resolution mode should trounce the Nikon D810 and the Sony A7R II in image detail and noise (see Sony A7R II: Where is Pixel Shift?). However, one practical challenge is the selection of high-grade lenses.
Conventional sensors are monochrome (RGGB Bayer matrix typically), recording a single 12 to 14 bit value per pixel. The Pentax K1 Super resolution mode promises the first true-color full-frame sensor on the market, with reduced noise behavior as a bonus."
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2016/20160218_1331-PentaxK1-SuperResolutionMode.html
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Picking up on the resolution needed to scan 6 by 7, I tend to think that too much is better than too little with film scanning. A few years ago I ran a test comparing 36 by 24 prints from my (then!) Mamiya 7ii, Canon 1Ds3 and Leica M9. All shot with good 35mm equivalent lenses on a tripod and at sensible apertures for the format. All shot back to back. Ektar in the Mamiya, scanned on Nikon 9000, but without glass carrier which further improves scan quality.
The Mamiya print was visibly better than than the others viewed close up, but it wasn't necessary to step far back for them to appear equivalent. I never testes if the difference carried through to 20 by 16 prints (which would tend to favour the Mamiya aspect ratio of course).
So, depending on preferred print size, I'd look to get around 100MP scans of 6 by 7 and throw data away if needed.
Mike
The Mamiya print was visibly better than than the others viewed close up, but it wasn't necessary to step far back for them to appear equivalent. I never testes if the difference carried through to 20 by 16 prints (which would tend to favour the Mamiya aspect ratio of course).
So, depending on preferred print size, I'd look to get around 100MP scans of 6 by 7 and throw data away if needed.
Mike
bjolester
Well-known
Thank you for commenting Mike! It is interesting to read about your experience with film and scanning. I am sure the Mamiya scans from the Coolscan 9000 looked fabulous.
When I started searching for a decent scanner for my Pentax 67ii films, I looked at the Coolscan 8000/9000 and some other options, but decided to settle for a brand new Epson V750. The possibility of ending up with a non-repairable Coolscan was too much of a gamble to me, even though they obviously are far superior medium format scanners compared to an Epson V700/750.
Some time ago I started a thread on RF about the Epson V750 and resolution, and learned it is possible to achieve about the equivalent to 40MP scans from a well exposed 6x7 Fuji Provia 100F slide. In many ways this is enough resolution for me, I mostly print A4, sometimes A3+. If I ever need a better scan, my plan has been to send the slide or negative for drum scanning. The problem is that I feel the Epson V750 is lacking somewhat in tonality, and also that it has great problems dealing with dark shadow areas in Velvia or Provia slides. This summer I captured some beautiful Noctilucent clouds on Fuji Provia 100F, and needless to say, the Epson does not have a chance to scan these subtle night shots.
The reason for for me to start thinking about the Pentax K-1 also as a scanner, is not necessarily resolution in MP (for producing large prints), but that I hope that it can produce "scans" with better tonality and shadow detail than my flatbed. I believe I have been permanently spoilt by my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, and the superb scans it can produce
When I started searching for a decent scanner for my Pentax 67ii films, I looked at the Coolscan 8000/9000 and some other options, but decided to settle for a brand new Epson V750. The possibility of ending up with a non-repairable Coolscan was too much of a gamble to me, even though they obviously are far superior medium format scanners compared to an Epson V700/750.
Some time ago I started a thread on RF about the Epson V750 and resolution, and learned it is possible to achieve about the equivalent to 40MP scans from a well exposed 6x7 Fuji Provia 100F slide. In many ways this is enough resolution for me, I mostly print A4, sometimes A3+. If I ever need a better scan, my plan has been to send the slide or negative for drum scanning. The problem is that I feel the Epson V750 is lacking somewhat in tonality, and also that it has great problems dealing with dark shadow areas in Velvia or Provia slides. This summer I captured some beautiful Noctilucent clouds on Fuji Provia 100F, and needless to say, the Epson does not have a chance to scan these subtle night shots.
The reason for for me to start thinking about the Pentax K-1 also as a scanner, is not necessarily resolution in MP (for producing large prints), but that I hope that it can produce "scans" with better tonality and shadow detail than my flatbed. I believe I have been permanently spoilt by my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, and the superb scans it can produce
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Funny thing, this thread has got me thinking about camera scanning rather than using the scanner.
One if the challenges with camera scanning is the Bayer matrix and the Pensax pixelshift approach eliminates that issue. The Olympus system might also, but at present my sense is that the Pentax approach is more use to our purpose.
The next challenge is resolution. The Nikon 9000anages just under 4,000dpi resolution, which sees enough for most purposes. However, if you take a look at some crops from 6,300dpi flextight scans (figital revolution has some scattered around) you can see some advantages.
Assuming a 1:1 macro lens, the K1 should be able to approach 5,200dpi and the K3ii 6,500. Of course, you can scan at lower resolution when required and using the K3ii for one shot scanning of 35mm would still leave a 4000dpi file that will print at most reasonable sizes perfectly well, and could be a faster workshop than a dedicated scanner. The K3ii also has the advantage that it only uses the centre of a full frame macro lens, prospectively leading to better 'scans'. The downside is that, to achieve this, you would need to stitch at least 3 K3ii frames for a max resolution 35mm scan (potentially lots more work, but probably only for the few frames that justified it) whereas the K1 could deliver in one exposure.
The K1 might also be more useful in other use, given I already have a 24Mp digital body.
Also thinking about lightsource, colour adjustable, and film holders, but suspect this could prove an interesting project.
Now, imagine 'scanning' a 5 by 7 negative at 6,300dpi - the stitch would be an interesting challenge.
One if the challenges with camera scanning is the Bayer matrix and the Pensax pixelshift approach eliminates that issue. The Olympus system might also, but at present my sense is that the Pentax approach is more use to our purpose.
The next challenge is resolution. The Nikon 9000anages just under 4,000dpi resolution, which sees enough for most purposes. However, if you take a look at some crops from 6,300dpi flextight scans (figital revolution has some scattered around) you can see some advantages.
Assuming a 1:1 macro lens, the K1 should be able to approach 5,200dpi and the K3ii 6,500. Of course, you can scan at lower resolution when required and using the K3ii for one shot scanning of 35mm would still leave a 4000dpi file that will print at most reasonable sizes perfectly well, and could be a faster workshop than a dedicated scanner. The K3ii also has the advantage that it only uses the centre of a full frame macro lens, prospectively leading to better 'scans'. The downside is that, to achieve this, you would need to stitch at least 3 K3ii frames for a max resolution 35mm scan (potentially lots more work, but probably only for the few frames that justified it) whereas the K1 could deliver in one exposure.
The K1 might also be more useful in other use, given I already have a 24Mp digital body.
Also thinking about lightsource, colour adjustable, and film holders, but suspect this could prove an interesting project.
Now, imagine 'scanning' a 5 by 7 negative at 6,300dpi - the stitch would be an interesting challenge.
bjolester
Well-known
You come up with many interesting points in your comment above sojournerphoto.
The Pentax K-1 seems like a very capable camera, and I am planning to purchase the camera when I have saved up the necessary funding, maybe sometime before the end of the year. By this time Pentax also will have ironed out any glitches with the new camera.
The idea of also employing the camera pixel shift super resolution mode for scanning film, makes the K-1 even more attractive. And I could sell my Epson V750 as part of building up cash for the K-1.
I have recently started scanning my father's 35mm Kodachromes from my childhood in Tanzania in the late 1960s, where there are family photos and wildlife- and landscape photos. I have scanned the Kodachromes on my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. So far I have scanned the best wildlife shots and assembled these in an Apple Photobook. The scanned 35mm Kodachromes look absolutely stunning both on screen and in modest sized prints in the Photobook. There is hardly any need for sharpening of the Minolta 5400 scans, they look amazing straight out of the scanner. When comparing these Kodachrome scans with my own Pentax 67ii Provia 100F scans from the Epson V750, I find it difficult to convince myself that medium format "hybrid" photography is worth the time and effort. I have also shot 35mm Provia 100F and scanned om my MDSE 5400 that are much more satisfying that the Pentax 67ii + flatbed results.
This is where the Pentax K-1 pixel shift super resolution could provide a viable alternative to a flatbed scanner, and revitalize my interest in medium format film. My hope is that just a single shot "scan" of 6x7 medium format with the K-1 in pixel shift mode will give much better results than my Epson V750. Diglloyd mentions (in the blog entry linked in my posts above) an estimate of about 50mp from the Pentax K-1 in pixel shift mode. When considering the crop from 2x3 to 6x7, there will still be a lot of good megapixels in 14bit full RGB. Moreover, if the resolution from a single shot is not enough, one can take several shots and stitch, and achieve a very potent scan.
The future looks so bright I got to go and buy myself some Pentax shades
The Pentax K-1 seems like a very capable camera, and I am planning to purchase the camera when I have saved up the necessary funding, maybe sometime before the end of the year. By this time Pentax also will have ironed out any glitches with the new camera.
The idea of also employing the camera pixel shift super resolution mode for scanning film, makes the K-1 even more attractive. And I could sell my Epson V750 as part of building up cash for the K-1.
I have recently started scanning my father's 35mm Kodachromes from my childhood in Tanzania in the late 1960s, where there are family photos and wildlife- and landscape photos. I have scanned the Kodachromes on my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. So far I have scanned the best wildlife shots and assembled these in an Apple Photobook. The scanned 35mm Kodachromes look absolutely stunning both on screen and in modest sized prints in the Photobook. There is hardly any need for sharpening of the Minolta 5400 scans, they look amazing straight out of the scanner. When comparing these Kodachrome scans with my own Pentax 67ii Provia 100F scans from the Epson V750, I find it difficult to convince myself that medium format "hybrid" photography is worth the time and effort. I have also shot 35mm Provia 100F and scanned om my MDSE 5400 that are much more satisfying that the Pentax 67ii + flatbed results.
This is where the Pentax K-1 pixel shift super resolution could provide a viable alternative to a flatbed scanner, and revitalize my interest in medium format film. My hope is that just a single shot "scan" of 6x7 medium format with the K-1 in pixel shift mode will give much better results than my Epson V750. Diglloyd mentions (in the blog entry linked in my posts above) an estimate of about 50mp from the Pentax K-1 in pixel shift mode. When considering the crop from 2x3 to 6x7, there will still be a lot of good megapixels in 14bit full RGB. Moreover, if the resolution from a single shot is not enough, one can take several shots and stitch, and achieve a very potent scan.
The future looks so bright I got to go and buy myself some Pentax shades
sojournerphoto
Veteran
You come up with many interesting points in your comment above sojournerphoto.
The Pentax K-1 seems like a very capable camera, and I am planning to purchase the camera when I have saved up the necessary funding, maybe sometime before the end of the year. By this time Pentax also will have ironed out any glitches with the new camera.
The idea of also employing the camera pixel shift super resolution mode for scanning film, makes the K-1 even more attractive. And I could sell my Epson V750 as part of building up cash for the K-1.
I have recently started scanning my father's 35mm Kodachromes from my childhood in Tanzania in the late 1960s, where there are family photos and wildlife- and landscape photos. I have scanned the Kodachromes on my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. So far I have scanned the best wildlife shots and assembled these in an Apple Photobook. The scanned 35mm Kodachromes look absolutely stunning both on screen and in modest sized prints in the Photobook. There is hardly any need for sharpening of the Minolta 5400 scans, they look amazing straight out of the scanner. When comparing these Kodachrome scans with my own Pentax 67ii Provia 100F scans from the Epson V750, I find it difficult to convince myself that medium format "hybrid" photography is worth the time and effort. I have also shot 35mm Provia 100F and scanned om my MDSE 5400 that are much more satisfying that the Pentax 67ii + flatbed results.
This is where the Pentax K-1 pixel shift super resolution could provide a viable alternative to a flatbed scanner, and revitalize my interest in medium format film. My hope is that just a single shot "scan" of 6x7 medium format with the K-1 in pixel shift mode will give much better results than my Epson V750. Diglloyd mentions (in the blog entry linked in my posts above) an estimate of about 50mp from the Pentax K-1 in pixel shift mode. When considering the crop from 2x3 to 6x7, there will still be a lot of good megapixels in 14bit full RGB. Moreover, if the resolution from a single shot is not enough, one can take several shots and stitch, and achieve a very potent scan.
The future looks so bright I got to go and buy myself some Pentax shades
Yes, spoilt for choice.
Looking at the numbers, for most of my prints a single exposure from either K1 or K3ii would work from any format, and the need to stich would only be for 'special' images. It doesn't address the alignment, film flatness and even illumination issues, but it does mean that once set up there is reasonable workflow I hope.
I would expect to also be able to image a full 35mm film to make contact sheets etc - that would speed things up a lot.
bjolester
Well-known
My plan for scanning medium format has been Epson V750 for websharing (flickr and diverse forums), and Hasselblad Flextight scan at a local lab for the very "special" shots. Tim Parkin's drumscanning service has also been on my list for the very special shots.
But now I am thinking in the same line as you: Single shot captures with the K-1 for most shots and multiple shots stiched for the very outstanding shots (hopefully I will end up with such captures
). This seems like a doable project, I also need to experiment with light sources, copy stand/tripod, holders, etcsojournerphoto
Veteran
My plan for scanning medium format has been Epson V750 for websharing (flickr and diverse forums), and Hasselblad Flextight scan at a local lab for the very "special" shots. Tim Parkin's drumscanning service has also been on my list for the very special shots.
But now I am thinking in the same line as you: Single shot captures with the K-1 for most shots and multiple shots stiched for the very outstanding shots (hopefully I will end up with such captures
I've promised myself the camera will be the last piece I buy! Look forward to hearing about your progress.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Just found this old thread and have, this weekend started some sale scanning with the K1. So far it has worked really well and makes nice files from 35mm or 6x7 negs in single shot mode with pixel stitch.
35mm hp5 has clear and nicely defined grain. 6x7 tmx100 doesn't really show grain, but lovely tonality and detail. 4x5 and 5x7 are superb and really want at least a bit of stitching.
Mike
35mm hp5 has clear and nicely defined grain. 6x7 tmx100 doesn't really show grain, but lovely tonality and detail. 4x5 and 5x7 are superb and really want at least a bit of stitching.
Mike
charjohncarter
Veteran
I found that a Macro lens is a necessity for DSLR scanning. Yours sounds perfect.
dugrant153
Established
How about the Pentax K-01?
How about the Pentax K-01?
I've used my Pentax K01 (and a macro lens) for scanning negatives and the results have turned out pretty amazing, especially compared to my Epson V700 which is showing softer and softer results it seems.
Black and white is not too bad but color is a struggle due to white balance issues and that ever present "green tint" that makes it's way onto some... although, this could do more with Vuescan than the DNG files the K01 generates.
The K01 is a mirrorless camera and Pentax's first and only foray into mirrorless. Despite people's thoughts on it, I think it's a great camera... especially as a film scanner
How about the Pentax K-01?
I've used my Pentax K01 (and a macro lens) for scanning negatives and the results have turned out pretty amazing, especially compared to my Epson V700 which is showing softer and softer results it seems.
Black and white is not too bad but color is a struggle due to white balance issues and that ever present "green tint" that makes it's way onto some... although, this could do more with Vuescan than the DNG files the K01 generates.
The K01 is a mirrorless camera and Pentax's first and only foray into mirrorless. Despite people's thoughts on it, I think it's a great camera... especially as a film scanner