[cbaytan]

To add a little spice on the excitement here, I remember that once Adam said he never shoots RAW, only jpeg's, if his samples made out of jpeg's too, we are seeing/comparing different K-5^s jpeg engines here, not the actual shots

[normhead]

At this point we are thinking of retiring the K-x and K20D, so it's a choice between the K-5 and K5 IIs. We already have a K-5. SO do I want to pay $500 more for the K-5 IIs. I suspect we will. Now if we weren't thinking of buying a camera anyway.. to me that's not enough to upgrade for. Thinking of either screen or print output... that's like the difference you used to see between FF and APS-c. The question is, will that make any difference to the view-ablity of my images either print or screen, and I doubt it will. If you have to crop enough to make that visible you should probably just get a longer lens.

But on the other hand, if I'm buying a new camera anyway, might as well give it a go.

[Anvh]

To add a little spice on the excitement here, I remember that once Adam said he never shoots RAW, only jpeg's, if his samples made out of jpeg's too, we are seeing/comparing different K-5^s jpeg engines here, not the actual shots

I asked him what he shot these in but he didn't answer my comment.

[Adam]

I asked him what he shot these in but he didn't answer my comment.

RAW+, but the quick-and-dirty shots posted here are cropped from the JPEGs (which were taken using the exact same settings following a camera reset).

Regardless, it seems that the K-5 IIs has a much greater resolution than the K-5. The moire is much more pronounced than on the K-5, whose weak AA filter does make it possible to see only mild moire in something like a mosquito net or on a test chart. In none of the 100 nature/city shots I took outdoors, however, was there any evidence of moire from the IIs.

BTW, I did the AF tests yesterday. The II faster in low light, and the AF actually works in EV -1, where the K-5 couldn't even lock on once on a contrasty subject. In EV -2 and -3, however, it was hit and miss for the K-5 II.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[RBellavance]

BTW, I did the AF tests yesterday. The II faster in low light, and the AF actually works in EV -1, where the K-5 couldn't even lock on once on a contrasty subject. In EV -2 and -3, however, it was hit and miss for the K-5 II.

Have you tested for the "front focus under dim tungsten light" problem that affected the K-5 ?

[Adam]

Have you tested for the "front focus under dim tungsten light" problem that affected the K-5 ?

No I did not, all tests were performed using flourescent ambient light.

[Buschmaster]

Maybe K20D will stay as the workhorse for now. Adding a Q might make more sense than a K-5 IIs.

Wait for the next generation, perhaps? I've already waited this long.

[beholder3]

[[deleted]

[westmill]

What ever there was: gone. Tried K-5IIs with a 25W tungsten bulb dimmed to about 30% and focus is perfect.

That is good to hear I think the next question on every ones lips is what is it like with flash exposures, hint hint lol

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[JinDesu]

RAW+, but the quick-and-dirty shots posted here are cropped from the JPEGs (which were taken using the exact same settings following a camera reset).

Regardless, it seems that the K-5 IIs has a much greater resolution than the K-5. The moire is much more pronounced than on the K-5, whose weak AA filter does make it possible to see only mild moire in something like a mosquito net or on a test chart. In none of the 100 nature/city shots I took outdoors, however, was there any evidence of moire from the IIs.

BTW, I did the AF tests yesterday. The II faster in low light, and the AF actually works in EV -1, where the K-5 couldn't even lock on once on a contrasty subject. In EV -2 and -3, however, it was hit and miss for the K-5 II.

It'll be nice to see the chart you did for the k-30/k-5 comparo.

-1EV - hit hit hit hit hit vs miss miss miss miss miss
-2EV - hit hit hit miss miss vs miss miss miss miss miss

lol

[westmill]

That is fair enough. Nuff said lol Thank you

[Anvh]

RAW+, but the quick-and-dirty shots posted here are cropped from the JPEGs (which were taken using the exact same settings following a camera reset).

Regardless, it seems that the K-5 IIs has a much greater resolution than the K-5. The moire is much more pronounced than on the K-5, whose weak AA filter does make it possible to see only mild moire in something like a mosquito net or on a test chart. In none of the 100 nature/city shots I took outdoors, however, was there any evidence of moire from the IIs.

But like has been said with Jpeg you're also comparing the JPEG engine and the conversion.

Just look at the finer detail differences between RAW and Jpeg here.
Pentax K-5 Camera Imaging - Full Review

There are now to many variables to say it really is the lack of AA causing these differences.

[Docrwm]

Looking forward to it all being pulled together into a full review.

[beholder3]

[deleted]