[jon404]

No, NSA-GCHQ, this isn't for you. Not THAT kind of alias. What I'm wondering about today is different. Seems that about two years ago, Pentax announced two new cameras -- the K-5 II, and the K-5 IIs. What does the 's' stand for? Well, they took out something called the Bayer filter, which -- at the expense of a little sharpness -- helps reduce moire effects in your pictures. Anti-aliasing.

So the K-5 IIs is a little sharper than the original K-5 II. Costs a little more, too. These days, the K-5 II camera body is US $640 on Amazon, and the K-5 IIs is $707.

As far as I can tell, except for that sensor filter, the two cameras are identical -- the best Pentax could make, not long ago. Looking for your opinions here -- is the K-5 IIs worth the extra money? In practice, would I, or anybody else, notice the quality gain from the missing sensor filter? Or would the risk of getting the increased moire make me want to stick to the original K-5 II?

---

Last edited by jon404; 03-04-2014 at 05:46 PM.

[Adam]

No, NSA-GCHQ, this isn't for you. Not THAT kind of alias. What I'm wondering about today is different. Seems that about two years ago, Pentax announced two new cameras -- the K-5 II, and the K-5 IIs. What does the 's' stand for? Well, they took out something called the Bayer filter, which -- at the expense of a little sharpness -- helps reduce moire effects in your pictures. Anti-aliasing.

So the K-5 IIs is a little sharper than the original K-5 II. Costs a little more, too. These days, the K-5 II camera body is US $640 on Amazon, and the K-5 IIs is $707.

As far as I can tell, except for that sensor filter, the two cameras are identical -- the best Pentax could make, not long ago. Looking for your opinions here -- is the K-5 IIs worth the extra money? In practice, would I, or anybody else, notice the quality gain from the missing sensor filter? Or would the risk of getting the increased moire make me want to stick to the original K-5 II?

The gain can generally only be observed when using high-quality (i.e. prime) lenses at wide apertures. The matter has been debated to death here on the forum and in articles; you can learn more by reading our K-5 II/IIs review:
Pentax K-5 II / IIs Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

My opinion on the matter is as follows: the K-5 IIs does give you sharper files out-of-camera when paired with quality lenses. However, the results are comparable to what you'd get with the K-5 II after applying an unsharp mask in post. Plus, you have to deal with the increased risk of moire. That's why I avoided filterless cameras until the K-3 came out, which gives you ultimate control. Plus, its higher-resolution sensor requires finer details to exhibit the same amount of moire.

You might also be interested in reading this page of our K-3 review, which compares the K-50's image quality (AA filter) to the K-5 IIs (filterless):
Pentax K-3 Review - Moire - PentaxForums.com

[jerryleejr]

gonna follow this one

JJ

[Drake Avenue]

I've run into moire so rarely with my K5iis over the past year that it's basically a non issue for me. I shoot weddings and fashion.

[dmbaile2]

When I see moire examples online it usually takes me a minute to find the offending aberration. Maybe my eyes just aren't good at detecting it. With that said, the sharpness gain is marginal. I say that because I have to pixel peep to find it. I still went with the K5IIs.. Not sure why, maybe i just had the extra cash burning a hole in my pocket. I paid $690 on amazon for my copy a couple weeks ago. I think at that time the price difference was pretty minimal.

[rwingsfan]

My reasoning for getting the K5IIs over the regular K5II was twofold. First being the K5II is harder to find new, the second being why get a camera that right off the bat makes for less sharp photos? Or at least potentially so? Yes, most cameras we have had do have a AA filter, but when this is offered without, the benefit surely out weighs the slight increase in correctable moire. I for one have been astounded by the sharpness I have gotten from the S.

[jerryleejr]

I think they are both fine cameras, and from what I've researched by talking to owners is you can get the same results from both in PP just a little more work with the K5II...

JJ

[rwingsfan]

I think they are both fine cameras, and from what I've researched by talking to owners is you can get the same results from both in PP just a little more work with the K5II...

JJ

They definitely are both fine cameras. I think the availability of the K5II new has dried up and the K5IIs at <$700 is a fine deal. I had the standard K5II before I had a foray with Canon and Nikon, at that time I considered it the best body I had owned. Since then I have a new K5IIs and I truly like it better yet. Can't really go wrong with either

[davek]

When I went from K7 to K5ii, the differences was night and day. So, for me, the incremental difference wasn't really worth the cost. I've since bought a second K5ii on one of the great recent sales, so now for the first time I have 2 identical bodies (great for shooting weddings). I don't need to look at a new camera body for quite a while.... Lenses, are a different matter entirely.

[jerryleejr]

When I went from K7 to K5ii, the differences was night and day. So, for me, the incremental difference wasn't really worth the cost. I've since bought a second K5ii on one of the great recent sales, so now for the first time I have 2 identical bodies (great for shooting weddings). I don't need to look at a new camera body for quite a while.... Lenses, are a different matter entirely.

Amen...

JJ