[Anvh]

There is a seperate controll for sharpening, it's with contrast, saturation and such, i believe it's in the first part of the main menu or in the Fn menu where you can also change the colour profiel.

But if you're shooting in RAW then those setting wont have any effect on your raw file though.

[kataria0]

There is a seperate controll for sharpening, it's with contrast, saturation and such, i believe it's in the first part of the main menu or in the Fn menu where you can also change the colour profiel.

But if you're shooting in RAW then those setting wont have any effect on your raw file though.

Anvh
I got to it by pressing LV and then WB button. Then I could scroll down to the sharpness. Yes I am aware of it not impacting RAW pictures.
As per the manual to get to the sharpness control "Press the 4 way controller > in Capture mode"
Q1) Is the 4 way controller the 4 buttons around the OK button?
Q2) What is capture mode?

Thanks

[Rnovo]

Glad you're happy with your 5IIs. But although armchair experts may desire to kill time by sharpening 5II images, I and others are doing so to see if the IIs is worth the extra outlay in cash, and/or if it is going to significantly add to our post processing time.

I made a few comments on that in an other post. I am finding that PP is a lot less necessary besides the very basics. I am finding that sharpening in RAW to 60 very max is sufficient - a lot better than elsewhere, a shot of levels is only what I do and better I have found that ISO 800 has a magic rendition which reminds you the old film days. I only correct noise on images for printing, otherwise it is unnecessary even at ISO 1600, in most cases.
My conclusion is that this K5IIs is a dream come true so far.
I would say the shutter is even more silent the the K5 - nobody hears it, 90% of the time.
So, I don't even read comments too technical, I just shoot and enjoy!
What are the other questions...

[Anvh]

Anvh
I got to it by pressing LV and then WB button. Then I could scroll down to the sharpness. Yes I am aware of it not impacting RAW pictures.
As per the manual to get to the sharpness control "Press the 4 way controller > in Capture mode"
Q1) Is the 4 way controller the 4 buttons around the OK button?
Q2) What is capture mode?

Thanks

Yeah that also works XD

Q1) yes
Q2) when the camera is in "shooting mode" press the shutter button half way and you should automaticly go into the correct mode incase you arent in it.

[kataria0]

Yeah that also works XD

Q1) yes
Q2) when the camera is in "shooting mode" press the shutter button half way and you should automaticly go into the correct mode incase you arent in it.

I have DA* 55mm with K-5 ii now. I am reading the manual and trying to understand the settings.
I wish to take meteorite pictures tomorrow night (THR: 12/13/2012)
I am now in Manual Mode, with the lens button on the side set to MF. When I rotate the focus ring the camera doesn't zoom to focus point to help me focus. Any settings I need to perform to do so?

I get the feeling since the camera is going to be looking at the sky my lens focal point is going to be set to infinity. Am I right on that?
Since I am looking at infinity I am not interesed in Depth Of Field effect but none-the-less if I set the Aperture high like > 7, the ISO gets too high. I am hoping to capture lowest noise picture possible on this camera. I suppose I can set my Aperture to 2.8 first, I am planning to have shutter open for about 5 seconds and then adjust my ISO till correct exposure appears. At night where should I point my camera to get exposure reading before taking a picture? Also anyone has first cut idea of suitable settings for my described scenario. Please note that there will be a little bit light from near-by buildings.
I just came up with a setting: shutter=5", Aperture=F10, ISO=1600. Perhaps I can go to lower stop on the aperture and get lower in ISO. Ahh so many options...

[Anvh]

When the lens is in MF you need to manual focus.
Not sure what you mean with zoom to focus, you mean liveview there?
You can press the info button when in liveview to zoom in and use that to check the focus.

Yes the focus will be in infinity but you can set it a bit before that and use f/5.6 up to f/8 don't think i want everything sharp so i use f/16, that setting actually makes the lens less sharp because of diffraction.

No idea what kind of settings you need for night sky, im not a landscape shooter.

[regor]

Everyone! Please! It's very, very simple. If the iis has a higher native resolution than the ii out of the box, then it has higher resolution . . . PERIOD!!! I really don't know what is so hard to understand. It is, so far as I know, legal to sharpen images from both cameras.

It is not THAT simple. The "native" resolution is the same for either cameras. If the softening induced by the AA filter is less than the min resolving power of the Sensor, then it isn't all that un-reasonnable to assume that the K5IIs cannot show any more details than a sharpened K5II image. Do not confuse resolution with sharpness. The resolution is the same in either cases: 16Mpix. If adjacent 2 pixels aren't blurred by the AA filter to the point of optically "merging" into 1 (double sized) pixel, then the resolving power of either cameras remains absolutely the same. The OP is, for what I can understand, interested in making that determination. i.e. show us that an image taken with the K5II (whatever PP sharpening it takes) has less detail resolution than one taken by the K5IIs (whatever PP sharpening applied). i.e. if I were to take a photo of 2 dots, sized and spaced to match the resolving power of the lens, at 1:1 reproduction ratio, how many dots would I see with the K5II or the K5IIs. If the answer is 2 dots in both cases, then there is no real resolving advantage to removing the AA filter on the K5IIs. It just requires less sharpening !

---

Last edited by regor; 12-13-2012 at 02:00 PM.

[dtmateojr]

It's quite simple. An AA filter, to be effective, should smoothen the jaggies. It can't smoothen jaggies if the filter falls between the cracks of each pixel (outresolving the sensor) or it will have to interpolate (invent pixels). That's why an AA filter induces blur because it's working. If the K52 and K52s have the same sharpness then either

1) the AA filter does not work
2) removing the AA filter is useless because of #1

There's not much choice, no?

[brntoki]

It is not THAT simple. The "native" resolution is the same for either cameras. If the softening induced by the AA filter is less than the min resolving power of the Sensor, then it isn't all that un-reasonnable to assume that the K5IIs cannot show any more details than a sharpened K5II image. Do not confuse resolution with sharpness. The resolution is the same in either cases: 16Mpix. If adjacent 2 pixels aren't blurred by the AA filter to the point of optically "merging" into 1 (double sized) pixel, then the resolving power of either cameras remains absolutely the same. The OP is, for what I can understand, interested in making that determination. i.e. show us that an image taken with the K5II (whatever PP sharpening it takes) has less detail resolution than one taken by the K5IIs (whatever PP sharpening applied). i.e. if I were to take a photo of 2 dots, sized and spaced to match the resolving power of the lens, at 1:1 reproduction ratio, how many dots would I see with the K5II or the K5IIs. If the answer is 2 dots in both cases, then there is no real resolving advantage to removing the AA filter on the K5IIs. It just requires less sharpening !

dtmateojr has it right. If the AA filter blurs less than the native resolving power of the sensor in front of which it sits, then it is a useless filter. I.E., if it can be granted me that blurring an image is going to in some degree reduce resolution, however minute, then it has to lose the resolution of a non blurred counterpart. It IS that simple. It seems that, perhaps, you have confused sharpness with resolution.

Your and others' arguments are that, after post processing, the 5II images are as apparently full of resolution as the 5IIs. I will give you that. I've already said in this thread that they are "so, so close". For 99% of images, I'd say you'll not notice the advantage of the 5IIs. But, to say they resolve the same detail is to say the AA filter is a useless extra bit of material in front of the sensor for no reason. Obviously, this is not the case.

From my testing of images posted at DPReview, the 5IIs does indeed resolve more detail, but it is so extremely fine that it takes a special kind of pixel-peeper to even find it. What I have concluded is that the 5IIs is impressive in that, after post processing both IIs and II images, it can come to a point of "perfection", where I stopped trying to bring out more detail with sharpening techniques because everything was already "perfect"; it just didn't have any softness at all. The 5II, however, started showing sharpening artifacts before it could quite get to the same level. There was still some softness that I would have liked to have fixed, but it was not practically possible.

Actual Detail
Apparent Detail

Proper use of these terms may help us better clarify our findings. It gets a little tiring trying to be too pedantic, and I often am too loose with terminology, but hopefully we can keep these hairs split a little more neatly for our growing understanding going forward.

[regor]

dtmateojr has it right. If the AA filter blurs less than the native resolving power of the sensor in front of which it sits, then it is a useless filter. ... It seems that, perhaps, you have confused sharpness with resolution.

Perhaps.

...From my testing of images posted at DPReview, the 5IIs does indeed resolve more detail, but it is so extremely fine that it takes a special kind of pixel-peeper to even find it...

That is good, and I can't argue with that, tx for sharing the result of your efforts. Then I'd like to know: is it significant enough that it can be seen (or generally felt) on a poster size print ? That's really what it comes down to for me as far a resolution goes (though it seems the absence of AA filter "may" also have an effect on PF). What's your thoughts ?

[Anvh]

It's quite simple. An AA filter, to be effective, should smoothen the jaggies. It can't smoothen jaggies if the filter falls between the cracks of each pixel (outresolving the sensor) or it will have to interpolate (invent pixels). That's why an AA filter induces blur because it's working. If the K52 and K52s have the same sharpness then either

But we are talking about black and white subject now, what about for example red white subject?

Things arent simpel at all with real world examples.

[Anvh]

is it significant enough that it can be seen (or generally felt) on a poster size print ?

Maybe if you press your nose against it but you're then looking at the inkt and not the photo....

[brntoki]

That is good, and I can't argue with that, tx for sharing the result of your efforts. Then I'd like to know: is it significant enough that it can be seen (or generally felt) on a poster size print ? That's really what it comes down to for me as far a resolution goes (though it seems the absence of AA filter "may" also have an effect on PF). What's your thoughts ?

First, sorry for the slow reply. Second, these are of course my opinions; ones resting on my subjective sense of what is good, proper, etc. So everyone is going to have to do their due diligence before shelling out cash for any camera.

Technique and vision are so much more important than the difference in apparent or actual detail and sharpness between the 5II and 5IIs that it becomes pretty trivial which camera you choose. A powerful, well executed image from either camera would be just as powerful and impressive from the other. Of course, that assumes that the person who created such a good image is able to deal with the softer (and ever so slightly less detail rich) 5II image in post processing, or color and moire artifacts in the 5IIs. If one has a lack of confidence in being able to deal with either problem in the digital darkroom, then they should choose the camera that gives them the image that is easiest for them to deal with.

Would you be able to tell the difference in a poster sized print? Personally, I think yes. But being able to tell and being a worse, and especially bad, print, are entirely different things. I just had a chance to show a few photos at a local community art fair. I was really surprised by one particular photo of someone's dog running along the beach. It was SO OBVIOUSLY low resolution that you would have had to be blind to miss it. It was, to put even a finer point on it, HORRIBLY low resolution, printed to about A4 (297 x 210 mm), and looking from a "normal viewing distance" didn't help. And you know what? It was still a good picture. As a photographer, it was sad that it was so low res, but it was very far from ruining the photo. The color, mood, and even the pixelated "detail" still carried the image.

I personally have settled on the IIs, but I wouldn't fault anyone for choosing either version.

So, those are my thoughts. It's up to you to decide whether it is worth $0.02 or not

[Gimbal]

I just came up with a setting: shutter=5", Aperture=F10, ISO=1600. Perhaps I can go to lower stop on the aperture and get lower in ISO. Ahh so many options...

Too late now I guess, but you should definitely open up the aperture. A meteorite is such a short burst of weak light that if stopped down to much it will not register.

[SlamDesiAK]

If you deblur an image such as the K-5 IIs, you end up with an overcooked image. And by overcooked, I don't mean razor sharp, but rather... an image that simply looks bad. The same can be said for an oversharpened image as well. ie. we can only amplify edge contrast or detail to a certain level before things begin to fall apart, and so, there are physical limits to what can and can't be accomplished this way.

That being said, I'm not sure a maximum sharpness presentation is the best approach to take in cases such as these either. Which is why I chose to limit my adjustments to removing the effects of the AA filter exclusively. This way, interested parties can take both images and process them accordingly to see how each holds-up. Otherwise... its unlikely that anyone will reach a satisfactory conclusions through the eyes of another person.

With this in mind, I'd say that the limitations associated with detail extrapolation give us the potential to determine just how much detail each image contains and more importantly... where detail cannot be created where none existed.

Hope this helps.

PS. these results are not exclusive to the K-5 II/K-5 IIs btw. As it turns-out the D800E is also outclassed by the D800 using the very same approach.

JohnBee... maybe I'm just uninformed but, by "deblur" are you referring to specific methods of sharpening? I usually use Unsharp Mask in Photoshop or ACR.