[jerryleejr]

I've read a lot of reviews and comparisons looked thru tons of photos but haven't seen the same picture take under the same conditions then post processed to a finished image. Using all three k5 series bodies? I'm thinking you can get the same final product each just takes a different amount of work with the computer...I'm talking normal size prints etc. anyone tried it?

JJ

[thazooo]

Never tried it but it's true. Every time I've 'Upgrade' to a newer camera model I've had to adjust my Post Processing technique to compensate for the larger amount of pixels or the newer in camera processor. The 'Pentax Colors' stay relatively close but sharpness and contrast have to be handled differently.

[jamarley]

From time to time I've perused the Comparometer at Imaging Resource. While not the be-all end-all of comparisons, it does lend a hand in parceling out the good from the bad when researching cameras. Beign a true Pentaxian, I only use it to verify my belief that I have already chosen the best bang for my buck.

I do wish there was such a resource for lens comparisons.

[Rondec]

I owned a K5 and own a K5 II and the files process exactly the same -- presets that worked for one work for the other. With the K5 IIs, you need to back off on sharpening due to the lack of AA filter. RAW files will appear sharper out of camera, but they also tend to get artifacts quicker if you sharpen them as much. Otherwise, I would think colors, dynamic range, and noise come out the same on all three models (as per DXO Mark).

[jerryleejr]

I owned a K5 and own a K5 II and the files process exactly the same -- presets that worked for one work for the other. With the K5 IIs, you need to back off on sharpening due to the lack of AA filter. RAW files will appear sharper out of camera, but they also tend to get artifacts quicker if you sharpen them as much. Otherwise, I would think colors, dynamic range, and noise come out the same on all three models (as per DXO Mark).

So all things being equal do you see the same results across the board? Not pixel peeping but side by side can you tell what camera took which pic?

[Rondec]

So all things being equal do you see the same results across the board? Not pixel peeping but side by side can you tell what camera took which pic?

No, you can't tell the difference. The II has better auto focus in low light, but say, with landscape photos, you get exactly the same results.

[Parallax]

I'm thinking you can get the same final product each just takes a different amount of work with the computer.

For practical purposes, yes, you can. Technically though, the information captured by the sensor is different for the IIs You're starting with a sharper image (assuming the same lens was used) but you have to do some serious pixel peeping to differentiate properly processed images from the 3 cameras.

[jerryleejr]

For practical purposes, yes, you can. Technically though, the information captured by the sensor is different for the IIs You're starting with a sharper image (assuming the same lens was used) but you have to do some serious pixel peeping to differentiate properly processed images from the 3 cameras.

Kinda what I was getting at, there is less pp involved with the IIs compared to the other 2 to arrive at the same finished product...

JJ

[Rondec]

Kinda what I was getting at, there is less pp involved with the IIs compared to the other 2 to arrive at the same finished product...

JJ

Only if you choose not to post process the IIs. I think that even the IIs files need some sharpening, just not as much. However, there is no difference in time when sharpening a RAW file 24 percent in Nik Effects versus sharpening a RAW file 35 percent in the same program. And in the end, the files are indistinguishable.

On the other hand, if you do no post processing and shoot out of camera jpegs, there is probably a lot larger difference that is probably visible in photos.