[Ash]

The question is do you want the slight overall boost in details you can get with the risk of moire.
It certainly ain't a problem most of the time but if it was just that one in the milion perfect shot that has the moire you won't be happy.
There are way to reduce moire with software but mostly you end up smearing away details

Shot thousands of images of all sorts of textured subjects with the K-5 IIs myself, and not one had any noticeable moire. I must admit, though, I wasn't set on trying hard to reproduce it.

[Anvh]

I even get moire with the K5 (the first version), i must be unlucky...

[Allison]

I shoot weddings and I have only gotten moire with some musicians suit and one shot of some tulle that was horribly back lit. Any other moire I have seen has been the equivalent to what I also see on the K5. In fact, the K5 did produce the same moire on both the suit and the tulle. I have been very happy with the IIs, especially since I am shooting things that should produce moire.

[Class A]

In fact, the K5 did produce the same moire on both the suit and the tulle.

The same amount?

If so, it must produce images of the same sharpness level and must be missing an AA-filter.

There are examples on the net (e.g., from DPRreview) where the K-5 IIs shows moirė and the K-5 (II) does not. So clearly the moirė risk is not the same.

[CheryleT]

I had moire effect one time in over 2000 images,so far, and I'm willing to take the sharpness as a trade anytime. Now, since all full frame cameras have a "missing" AA filter then moire must at least on occasion have this Moire effect. Of course the size of the sensor and type of lens, lighting and many other factors would apply and the result might not be duplicable, but, the sharpness for the price makes it a worthy tool. -- ct

[Class A]

Now, since all full frame cameras have a "missing" AA filter...

What makes you think that?

The D800e doesn't have an AA filter but the D800 and pretty much every other full-frame camera has an AA-filter.

BTW, the size of the sensor does not influence the likelihood of moiré.

Here are a few Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter.

[Allison]

The same amount?

If so, it must produce images of the same sharpness level and must be missing an AA-filter.

There are examples on the net (e.g., from DPRreview) where the K-5 IIs shows moirė and the K-5 (II) does not. So clearly the moirė risk is not the same.

I was referencing the two instances where I experienced moire in my IIs. I shoot weddings with both cameras. It was an extreme circumstance and it also caused moire on the shots with the k5. That filter is not a be all and end all answer to moire - you can still get moire in cameras that have the filter. Even the DPReview that you are referencing will show moire on the K5...but that set up is completely unrealistic to what I find myself shooting.

I know that I am going to come across times when the IIs will have moire and the k5 won't, I just haven't found it yet. Personally, I have found that the added sharpness to be worth the risk of moire and that the threat of moire is greatly over exaggerated. I am not alone in these feelings, there are others on this forum who feel the same way. And there are people on this forum who agree with your viewpoint. If the gain doesn't outweigh the risk for you, that is fine. Buy yourself a filtered camera. I am quite happy owning one filtered and one not filtered.

[fewayne]

+1, Allison. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"; nevertheless, FWIW, I too agonized over the II / IIs question...pretty much a waste of time, looking back. Haven't seen a single problem with the IIs, and certainly not one an antialiasing filter would have prevented. I'm sure that if I'd allowed the fear of moire to win out, I'd be happy with the II as well.

[Anvh]

It's not the fear for moire but more of an question what matters for the end result.

From users here many say they only see the differnce when they fully zoom in and so it's quite easy to conclude that the extra sharpness has little to no effect to the end result for most users.
Now moire is different and something you can see in the end result most of the time.

So it's chosing between the lesser of both evil, and most of the time keeping the AA filter is simply more beneficial to the end result.
I can show you some images where moire ruined the photo, but i can not show you images where the little extra sharpness makes or brakes the photo.

[Docrwm]

+1, Allison. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"; nevertheless, FWIW, I too agonized over the II / IIs question...pretty much a waste of time, looking back. Haven't seen a single problem with the IIs, and certainly not one an antialiasing filter would have prevented. I'm sure that if I'd allowed the fear of moire to win out, I'd be happy with the II as well.

One of my favorite phrases to the quacks I have to deal with is "The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"". Another +1 to Allison's post BTW.

[Class A]

I'm honestly happy for those people that use their K-5 IIs and have nothing but joy with it. That's totally cool.

However, I'm not happy to let that count as proof that the "threat of moire is greatly over exaggerated". If one of the reasons I list in my "Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter" post applies, you won't get moiré. So, if one or more of the following applies, you are good:

1. The spatial frequencies in the scene are too low.
2. The lens is wide open and acts as a low-pass filter.
3. The f-ratio is high enough to cause sufficient diffraction.
4. The lens is slightly defocused.
5. There is motion blur from camera shake or subject movement.

Hence, if you manage to establish one of the above all the time, you'll never have a moiré issue, even with a K-5 IIs. I suspect that camera shake is a frequent blur source that obviates the need for a Bayer-AA filter.

So for everyone who does not take painstaking precautions to get the absolutely sharpest image possible (which involves the use of tripods and/or flash) a filterless camera can be the better option. Therefore, paradoxically, the K-5 IIs is the better choice for people who take (slightly) blurry images to begin with, and that's completely fine.

I'm just opposed to the idea of the K-5 IIs being the best choice if you want to maximise image sharpness (because if you do, you'll have to deal with moiré sooner than with a K-5 II) and the notion of moiré just being a theoretical issue. The latter is clearly not true, if you get into the business of taking the sharpest images possible. There is a reason why manufactures spent the money on including Bayer-AA-filters.

[Docrwm]

I'm honestly happy for those people that use their K-5 IIs and have nothing but joy with it. That's totally cool.

However, I'm not happy to let that count as proof that the "threat of moire is greatly over exaggerated". If one of the reasons I list in my "Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter" post applies, you won't get moiré. So, if one or more of the following applies, you are good:

1. The spatial frequencies in the scene are too low.
2. The lens is wide open and acts as a low-pass filter.
3. The f-ratio is high enough to cause sufficient diffraction.
4. The lens is slightly defocused.
5. There is motion blur from camera shake or subject movement.

Hence, if you manage to establish one of the above all the time, you'll never have a moiré issue, even with a K-5 IIs. I suspect that camera shake is a frequent blur source that obviates the need for a Bayer-AA filter.

So for everyone who does not take painstaking precautions to get the absolutely sharpest image possible (which involves the use of tripods and/or flash) a filterless camera can be the better option. Therefore, paradoxically, the K-5 IIs is the better choice for people who take (slightly) blurry images to begin with, and that's completely fine.

I'm just opposed to the idea of the K-5 IIs being the best choice if you want to maximise image sharpness (because if you do, you'll have to deal with moiré sooner than with a K-5 II) and the notion of moiré just being a theoretical issue. The latter is clearly not true, if you get into the business of taking the sharpest images possible. There is a reason why manufactures spent the money on including Bayer-AA-filters.

Theory is a wonderful mental endeavour. Of course, empirical evidence trumps it EVERY time.

[Class A]

There is nothing more practical than a good theory.

Or in other words "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'". Even several anecdotes do not make data. And even if you have a statistically relevant number of anecdotes then you can still misinterpret that data.

Over and out.

[CheryleT]

Just wondering if the majority of full frame dslr's dont have a AA filter then is the mfg's assumption that the majority of full frame dslr users will always use a tripod? I use a monopod for about 1/4 of my images, tripod in my studio about 10% of the time and the remainder hand held with a sling connector. My walk around lens is a Tamron 18-200 and studio work is with a pentax 50mm. The studio work (where I can control lighting) has a sharpness that I can only attribute to the K-5IIs.
I could be wrong of course because because sharpness is subjective and each photographer can tell the result onto his/her self. As Thoreau said " It's not what you look at that's important, it's what you see".

[Class A]

Just wondering if the majority of full frame dslr's dont have a AA filter...

If the moon is made of cheese...



You can not conclude anything from a false premise.

The majority of full frame DSLRs have Bayer-AA-filters.

The studio work (where I can control lighting) has a sharpness that I can only attribute to the K-5IIs.

You are probably using flash or strobes and the respective short exposure times and moderate to high f-ratios are very conducive to image sharpness. In studio conditions I got tack sharp shots with a K100D and a Tamron 18-250.