[NVSteve]

but if every picture needs processing of this kind is not worth it.

I'll second that!

[normhead]

Norm, I think that's the sensible thing since you have a K-5 already. I'm still using a K20D, so either is a significant upgrade for me, but being the obsessive-compulsive that I am, which version isn't an easy choice. It will most likely be the IIs, though.

Ya, I'm still using the K20D too, Tessfully hogs the K-5. Ain't marriage grand? But at least when I see a shot I know will tax the K20D, I know i can "borrow" it for a while.

[JohnBee]

I'm not seeing that in this thread. Quite the opposite. I'm still waiting for someone to post up some comparisons of something other than studio shots, and with each (II and IIs) processed to their fullest. Examples such as those from the PF review of the II/IIs here. For someone like myself who owns zero Pentax gear (yet), I honestly do not care which camera is better. I would like to see at least a few owner arguments for the IIs, as opposed to all the anti-IIs here.

The problem with real world photography in cases such as these is where it is near impossible to draw assessments beyond the vast areas of space making-up personal tastes and tolerances with photographs. And so were left trying to quantify or measure what technical differences camera's possess in controlled settings as a result of that. - if that makes sense.

As for real world photography, the standing notion is that beautiful images can come out of pretty much any system. Which I think we can be seen every single day on this forum.

[regor]

... I would like to see at least a few owner arguments for the IIs, as opposed to all the anti-IIs here.

This is not a matter of Pro / Against one or the other. What the thread seems to suggest so far, is that the K5II images can be PP'd to approximate the relative sharpness of the K5IIs and show as much details. On the other hand, the K5IIs seems to provide a bit more PP latitude, exhibits less PF and less visible noise, but does have significantly more potential to show moiré. This does not make one better than the other. Simply different in their compromises. The question becomes: which are you willing to live with ? Your previous point in seeing the "best one can do" with either cameras has merit, as ultimately this is the end result that counts.

---

Last edited by regor; 11-16-2012 at 03:50 PM.

[Anvh]

My point is: K5II cannot support the same processing as K5IIs. Where K5IIs look good, K5II already have problems with more noise, the blur remains and more: look at the queen of hearts card, blue lines already become pixelated; look at the front coin. I repeat up is K5II down is K5IIs. Of course the differences are minimal but exist and if I go back with processing to put K5II at the same noise level as K5IIs, it become worst. Pleas look at my post in the full version of images. The crops are compressed in jpg again and more degradation may appear.
I am not defending K5IIs in any way, there are only my findings. I am still unsure if k5iis will be better then K5ii but not in term of sharpness or low light capabilities because will be, but in term of bad moire and bad aliasing (color aberration) (bad, i mean, to appear in every images and on a large scale). And from what I see until now, is present predominant at f5.6 in bright day light and when you use flash, in shiny black areas, in hair, in some clothes, in trees, in power lines, fences, roofs and anything with small repeating pattern. And some can be remove, some not, but if every picture needs processing of this kind is not worth it.

Your saying something different now though and i agree, but in all honestly we are looking at 100% now, how much of this will actually effect the final image?

I'm also concerned about the moire of the S version, that seems to have the most impact on the final images then the slightly less sharp normal version.

[derekkite]

The problem with real world photography in cases such as these is where it is near impossible to draw assessments beyond the vast areas of space making-up personal tastes and tolerances with photographs. And so were left trying to quantify or measure what technical differences camera's possess in controlled settings as a result of that. - if that makes sense.

As for real world photography, the standing notion is that beautiful images can come out of pretty much any system. Which I think we can be seen every single day on this forum.

It is the edges of capability that I'm interested in. To illustrate, while reading this long thread I heard a noise outside my office, saw a brown creeper on the tree by the window. I grabbed what I had on my K5, a long slow zoom, went outside. Overcast and dark. It wouldn't even focus, so no shot to pixel peep. These are my shooting conditions for the next 6 months or so, other than some faster long lenses.

So, would the K5II or s have focussed? Possibly. Would the shot, typically 1/200 or so wide open, probably at 3200 iso had any detail to extract? There was a comment somewhere that the S gets another stop of SR function for some reason. Is that true?

At the edge it is whether you get a usable shot at all rather than if you have some minor difference in sharpness in a studio shot. Does the S get you a few more of those? Do either of them get you a few more compared to the K5? I typically have to crop down to about 1/6th or less of the image. Does the S version give me a bit more detail at that crop?

A friend who has been doing photography for years said that people would spend thousands of dollars to gain a stop of light. We still do.

[simbon4o]

Anybody compared the K5II,IIs and K30? It is interesting The AA filter of K30 is something like in the middle of the K5s.

[Anvh]

There was a comment somewhere that the S gets another stop of SR function for some reason. Is that true?

At the edge it is whether you get a usable shot at all rather than if you have some minor difference in sharpness in a studio shot. Does the S get you a few more of those? Do either of them get you a few more compared to the K5? I typically have to crop down to about 1/6th or less of the image. Does the S version give me a bit more detail at that crop?

The S version and the normal mkII are the same beside the AA filter on the sensor, so focusing accuracy and speed is 100% the same.

As for SR, that is also 100% the same you won't be getting a stop extra, no idea where that would come from?

For the rest, the S version you need to have ideal shooting conditions to make a difference in sharpness, so a good lens, perfectly focused and no movement from the camera or subject.
So in the end, only when shooting in the studio with flash light or tripod work you might get a benefit for normal shooting out of the hand your own movement would already be enough to blur the image and lose any extra detail you might get.

[wahid_satu]

For the rest, the S version you need to have ideal shooting conditions to make a difference in sharpness, so a good lens, perfectly focused and no movement from the camera or subject.

Just wondering, would this be the case also if we use cameras with increased MP? For example, if we use the D3200 or D5200 would we need better lens, better focus, and stiffer arm to get better sharpness at the same shooting condition than if we use the D7000 or K-5 or k-x? I think when using cameras with smaller pixel pitch the requirements will be even more critical than using the camera without the AA filter. What do you reckon?

[HSV]

It is the edges of capability that I'm interested in. To illustrate, while reading this long thread I heard a noise outside my office, saw a brown creeper on the tree by the window. I grabbed what I had on my K5, a long slow zoom, went outside. Overcast and dark. It wouldn't even focus, so no shot to pixel peep. These are my shooting conditions for the next 6 months or so, other than some faster long lenses.

So, would the K5II or s have focussed? Possibly. Would the shot, typically 1/200 or so wide open, probably at 3200 iso had any detail to extract? There was a comment somewhere that the S gets another stop of SR function for some reason. Is that true?

At the edge it is whether you get a usable shot at all rather than if you have some minor difference in sharpness in a studio shot. Does the S get you a few more of those? Do either of them get you a few more compared to the K5? I typically have to crop down to about 1/6th or less of the image. Does the S version give me a bit more detail at that crop?

A friend who has been doing photography for years said that people would spend thousands of dollars to gain a stop of light. We still do.

Well, one stop is DOUBLE the light!

Unfortunately, in the world of photography, everything is relative...and that annoys the hell out of me. I can understand that in setting ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, the "stops" system works OK. In my opinion, in topics like AF light threshold (and flash power), light should be metered in lumens... so everybody knows how much light is exactly required.

[derekkite]

Well, one stop is DOUBLE the light!

Unfortunately, in the world of photography, everything is relative...and that annoys the hell out of me. I can understand that in setting ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, the "stops" system works OK. In my opinion, in topics like AF light threshold (and flash power), light should be metered in lumens... so everybody knows how much light is exactly required.

SR gives you 2-3 stops by allowing a slower shutter speed, all else being equal. Being able to use an iso of 400 where previously 200 was the maximum you could use gives you one stop. We are spoiled with digital; with film it meant a very expensive lens.

My point is that improvements are marginal. In good lighting conditions with a stable platform the differences between the s version and the straight K5, or even earlier models will be small and in most cases undetectable. When you get out of the studio, trying to shoot moving targets in poor light, or want to do a large print, marginal improvements matter. I regularly shoot where iso 1600 wide open at as slow a shutter speed as I can manage is all that is available to me. Then I want to crop. That is where marginal improvements really show up.

From what I see the K5IIs is marginally better than what I have, a K5. Autofocus seems better and it is slightly sharper. But not enough for me to upgrade. If it had a quicker processor that got rid of the waits I experience regularly, another marginal improvement then I may be interested.