I am caught in the inevitable clutches of indecision regarding moving from my K-x to either the K-5ii or K-5iis. I have read most, if not all the reviews here and elsewhere, and followed the various threads regarding the AA filter and moire. In the end, I am still stuck with either "why not go for the K-5iis ?" vs. "do I really need the K-5iis ?".
I am an amateur who shoots for my own pleasure and development as a hobby, capturing mostly landscape and candid's -- but always dreaming of becoming expert in all subject matter
I don't do a lot of prints, but am starting to create some photographic art for the home. I mostly work with decent zoom lenses out of convenience (laziness ?), but would eventually like to start working with some select primes (landscape, street, portrait, wildlife/sports).
Aside from some of the advocates for keeping the AA filter and using deconvolution capture sharpening, many of the reviews have suggested that the sharpness advantages of the K-5iis far outweigh potential for moire. Does this make the K-5ii essentially obsolete right out of the gate ? Or does this really only show in large prints ? Is there a good reason not to just get the K-5iis independent of the extra $150-$200 ?
I know this very question has come up before, but is there a collective wisdom at this point down the line regarding these two bodies for those upgrading from the K-x K-r tier or older bodies ?