[Basset]

I know the lack of an AA filter benefits landscape photographers.

I am curious if anyone who shots a fair amount of street photography (people, not buildings) is planning to get a K-5IIs anyway, and if so, why.

[crewl1]

I wouldn't see any specific benefit of a IIs for the type of street I do.
Not sure where it would help, unless you are doing very far away type work where you need the detail of tiny people?

I also don't see a reason -not- to use it if you have a K-5IIs.

[hansenn]

me, although i do a lot of buildings and other stuff I find in the streets.
I want the k-5 IIs because of its low noise in higher ISO rates. Means i can use faster shutter speeds to freeze moving objects like people, trains, cars etc etc.
Now I have the k20d and for me its only suitable with iso 100. For buildings, landscapes or non moving subjects its fine, but not for other things.

Then why not buy the cheaper k-5 for that? Imo the k-5 IIs is the perfect camera for the allround photographer. Perfect for landscape and architecture, but also for sports, people, moving objects thanks to its High Iso performance.

[Basset]

I wouldn't see any specific benefit of a IIs for the type of street I do.
Not sure where it would help, unless you are doing very far away type work where you need the detail of tiny people?

I also don't see a reason -not- to use it if you have a K-5IIs.

If you check out my Flickr streem, you will see very few shots of far away people. So I think we have similar approaches to street subjects, though you are plainly better at it!

I guess the question is whether if one is going to get a K-5II model, whether street photogs are going for the IIs because more resolution can't hurt; you can always soften detail in post if too harsh, but it's tougher to grab more detail in post.

[crewl1]

Julio your shots are inspiring.

whether street photogs are going for the IIs because more resolution can't hurt;

Certainly it cant hurt, but I don't see it as a key requirement for a street tog.

Didn't the master once say "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." ? He was more concerned in capturing the moment.

[JinDesu]

The question is, why not?

Only reason I can think of is moire. If the moire is negligible, then I don't mind spending the extra for the k-5IIs and using it for street photography, amongst the other types I do.

[Winder]

If street were my interest I would go with a Fuji X-E1 and the 14mm or 35mm.

[Basset]

If street were my interest I would go with a Fuji X-E1 and the 14mm or 35mm.

For small street gear, I have the Olympus E-PL3 with the Pansonic 20 / 1.7 and Olympus 45 / 1.8. (Got those because the Pentax K-r has a loud shutter and no tilt screen.) Plus, I have some nice small film street photog rangefinders, like the Canonet QL17 or Ricoh 500G. The rangefinders fit in a jacket pocket and have surprisingly good glass. So I think I have the small street camera covered. For now, at least.

This is really about a DSLR replacement. I like Pentax for street also because the DSLR is smaller than those from Canon and Nikon and the primes are great. (Ltds, and legacy).

No question I am getting some version of the K-5, just depends which of the 3.

[Basset]

Julio your shots are inspiring.



Certainly it cant hurt, but I don't see it as a key requirement for a street tog.

Didn't the master once say "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." ? He was more concerned in capturing the moment.

Well, I will stick to what I said about your street shots being miles ahead. Also, I get that point from HCB re sharpness. It's just a question of whether folks going for the Mark II are springing the extra $100, which in my view isn't very much. (Cost of treating a few friends to dinner.)

For me I am leaning toward the Mark II generation of K-5 because of the supposedly superior focus in lower light. So then the question was, do I just spring for the $100 and go without the AA filter? That's where I am.

On the other hand, I still have not ruled out the first gen K-5 and applying the price difference toward an FA Ltd or my first DA* lens. . . .

[crewl1]

I think the decision between II or IIs should be based on other aspects of your photographic interests rather than street, where I don't think it makes much of a difference.

There may be some other area where the moire issues may surface and that could be the clincher.

Congrats, either way you decide to go you will be pleased with the upgrade I'm sure.

[cbaytan]

To make my story short, aside AF and FF/BF problems I found real life K-5 photos has misty cast in considerable amount of cases hence IQ (in my taste) is not up to my CCD sensor K200D, I didn't want to mess PS'ing with bunch of photos trying to remove fog cast. I thought this cast came from thick AA filter. Now waiting for the IIs results.

[kberg]

It sounds like the new K-5 IIs is the best bet for me. I am also wanting to get the best ISO performance possible for low light situations and I also do landscape photography. The question for me now is: "When will these cameras become available in Canada?"

[crewl1]

I found real life K-5 photos has misty cast in considerable amount of cases hence IQ (in my taste) is not up to my CCD sensor K200D,

I'd never heard that before. My K-5 I felt had better/clearer images than my old K10D which I think is CCD , but it could have been a different sensor than the K200D.

Do you have side by side samples?

[NickLarsson]

I think the IIs may have a disadvantage for street because moiré is more likely to happen on clothes than in landscape for example.

So it may result in more PP in the end.

[bonaprof]

I have ordered a K-5 II to replace my K-20. I had considered the IIs, but my online research convinced me that I should stay away from the moire issue for several reasons.

1. I may keep my K-20 as a back-up, but I am a one camera at a time photographer. I have enough trouble deciding which lens and settings I should use without having to worry about moire in buildings or people's clothing.

2. Moire is difficult to adjust in processing software. Even when accomplished pros who have worked with photoshop admit they cannot remove all moire from a photograph. I hate working on post processing programs and more time in Lightroom or Photoshop is not for me.

3. Most pros who have commented on the issue recommend that you stick to the AA filter unless you are a pro who shoots lots of landscapes with wide angle lens.

4. Lastly, shooting with a IIs is relying on a tech tweak to improve your photos. But there is so much more for a great photo based on its composition, mood and moment than a super sharp subject.

My best solution would be a dial or button on the IIs that would permit the photographer to switch between no filter and the AA filter. Maybe I should wait for that one!