[Wingincamera]

This question might be difficult to answer, since no one has a K-5 IIs yet. I understand that with the optical low-pass filter removed the images should be sharper and the colors slightly more vibrant. What I am wondering is if lens quality (kit lens vs higher quality lens affect the image quality differently between the two camera bodies? Will the loss of the low-pass filter be affected by the lens?

I will be ordering either the K-5 II or the K-5 IIs with the kit 18-135 lens and wonder if this lens is not good enough for a camera without a low-pass filter Or should it make any difference at all?

[Adam]

I would say that you're still going to be able to see a difference, but the sharper the lens, the more benefit you'll get out of the higher resolution of the sensor.

[interested_observer]

Since there is really no information out yet, I have used information on the Nikon 800e as a strawman....

• Nikon D800-D800E First Comparison
• Discerning the Differences between the Nikon D800 and D800E | BH inDepth
• Nikon D800 vs D800E, Which to Choose? - photo.net

A lot of this depends on the strength of the AA filter used on the K5II vs the K5IIs. From what I understand that there are some differences in what Nikon did and what Pentax did. So, I doubt that there can really be a direct comparison. I would just use the two articles as a general overview.

The luminous-landscape article was very specific about the lens they used just for the reason as you stated.

I saw a posted K5IIs shots just the other day, so it appears that the cameras are on their way.

• PENTAX K-5IIs 1st. review ? ?? ??? ???? ????? - ??????

[Wingincamera]

Thank you for the info and the links. I use Chrome and it was able to translate the Japanese into English.

[RobG]

I will be ordering either the K-5 II or the K-5 IIs with the kit 18-135 lens and wonder if this lens is not good enough for a camera without a low-pass filter Or should it make any difference at all?

When I bought my K200, it came with a Sigma kit lens, and I was really disappointed by the lack of sharpness. However, when I bought the Pentax DA16-45 f4 lens, suddenly it was a different story! As Adam said, the better the glass you put on your camera, the better the results you will get. The world's best camera with a rubbish lens is not going to show what it's really capable of. Having said that, the Pentax 18-135 is probably a better lens than the Sigma lens I have, and I'm not saying it's rubbish. If that combination is what you can afford at the moment, go for it and get a better lens later. If you can possibly afford it, I'd suggest buying the camera with a better lens in the first place rather than spending money on a lens which you won't use later. My Sigma lens hasn't seen the light of day since I bought the DA16-45. Check the lens reviews on this site and decide what combination would work best for you. I already have a bunch of lenses, so I'll be buying the K5ii body only.

[Class A]

Maybe you'll find this discussion about omitting AA-filters interesting.

A bad lens favors the K-5 IIs, since

1. its blur and the blur of an AA filter add up, and
2. its blur makes it difficult for moiré to appear.

[RobG]

Maybe you'll find this discussion about omitting AA-filters interesting.

A bad lens favors the K-5 IIs, since

1. its blur and the blur of an AA filter add up, and
2. its blur makes it difficult for moiré to appear.

But then when you buy a better lens, you'll get moire! Let me add this to my previous response - buy the K5ii not the K5iis and you won't have to worry about moire. You'll still have a great camera!