[Adam]

Great, but note this only makes sense if the edits are published in your comparison. If people are left to create their own threads ("Look, here's what sharpening can do") then only a fraction of users who have read your comparison will see these.

We'll be sure to make the findings visible. By the way, if there's ever anything interesting that the community comes up with, I'd be happy to work with whoever is involved to make it more prominent, i.e. through a homepage or social media feature.

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:

[Thornplayer]

For people who only have kit lenses the inclusion of
18-55
50-200
55-300
and 18-135

I second this particularly with regard to the 18-135

[garyk]

Thanks for the skinny on the new camera Adam.
As always you are truthful. And that is very much appreciated by me.

[westmill]

thanks for the skinny on the new camera adam.
As always you are truthful. And that is very much appreciated by me.

+ one

[Paul the Sunman]

Not quite a test of the K-5IIs, but most relevant to its usability: how well do the common software tools handle the local reduction of moíre if and where it occurs? This would be a nice companion review at some stage.

[jasonlel]

What about af point size?

[Winder]

What about af point size?

It appears from all of the reviews that the AF points have remained the same size and pattern.

[Adam]

Please, try if the new Safox is more precise when focusing with very fast lenses - i.e. FA 50/1.4 or yours FA*85/1.4 ... focus with fully open aperture. Ideal would be front/back focus chart like here:

Here are the charts:

Pentax K-5 II / IIs Review - Autofocus - PentaxForums.com

It's pretty that apart from the tungsten bug, which has been fixed, the accuracy is the same.

[Class A]

It's pretty that apart from the tungsten bug, which has been fixed, the accuracy is the same.

I don't think you can say anything about real focus precision because your tests are not designed to check accuracy at a high level. You confirm that for real world AF the K-5's accuracy may be considered to be at 100% already (i.e., no improvements will be noticeable) for some level of accuracy.

However, I'd be surprised if a better test wouldn't reveal an accuracy advantage to the K-5 II(s).

BTW, it is remarkable how little the K-5 IIs and the K-5 image differ in sharpness. The same holds for the real world moiré example. The differences are nowhere near the "much higher resolution" examples where objects near infinity had been captured with two different FA* 85/1.4 copies. Have you investigated this or are you planning to do it?

[Adam]

BTW, it is remarkable how little the K-5 IIs and the K-5 image differ in sharpness. The same holds for the real world moiré example. The differences are nowhere near the "much higher resolution" examples where objects near infinity had been captured with two different FA* 85/1.4 copies. Have you investigated this or are you planning to do it?

Considering that the level of depth of the review in its current state is going to be more than adequate for most members, there are no official plans of testing this further. More comparative samples will be posted, though, as they get processed.

It is curious, however, that the difference between the shots taken with the 77mm is smaller (this applies to other photos that were taken yesterday as well). Could it be that the 85mm has a significantly higher resolving power than the 77mm? If that's the case, then I'll happily hang on to all my FA* full-frame glass until Pentax delivers said body.

Are you planning on getting a IIs to do any testing on your own, by the way?

[Class A]

Considering that the level of depth of the review in its current state is going to be more than adequate for most members, there are no official plans of testing this further.

I think that would be adequate for the AF comparison.
If you are referring to the "K-5 IIs vs K-5" comparisons, I would disagree. Others, not just me, commented that the K-5 shots look suspiciously soft. If you want a useful account of what the difference the "s" makes is, I believe you must validate that your K-5 shots were optimally sharp. They really look like the K-5 had an infinity focus problem with the particular FA* 85/1.4 lens it was paired with.

It is curious, however, that the difference between the shots taken with the 77mm is smaller (this applies to other photos that were taken yesterday as well). Could it be that the 85mm has a significantly higher resolving power than the 77mm?

Previously you assumed that subject distance was the criterion (the farther away, the better the K-5 IIs).
Have you now observed that the lens makes a difference and that subject distance is not the deciding factor anymore?
This would corroborate my hypothesis about an infinity focus problem with the K-5 & FA* 85/1.4 combo.

The problem is not that the K-5 IIs shots aren't sharp enough with the FA 77/1.8. The problem is that the K-5 shots with the FA* 85/1.4 are too soft. No further tests with other lenses will change that. If you manage to create ideal conditions and make an optimally sharp short with the K-5, the K-5 IIs cannot create a sharper shot (after the K-5 shot has been capture-sharpened). Any detail, the K-5 IIs will add, will be artefacts. Both have the same sensor resolution and the blur from the AA-filter can be undone with deconvolution (if there is no further blur).

I did a quick search for resolution figures for the FA 77/1.8 and FA* 85/1.4 but didn't find anything for the latter yet. In any event, if the lenses are OK, they can both outresolve 16MP, so I wouldn't be looking for a difference in lens resolving power. It rather appears, that the K-5 & FA 77/1.8 combo is better at obtaining a good AF result.

Are you planning on getting a IIs to do any testing on your own, by the way?

If you can arrange for a K-5 IIs to be sent to me, I'll put it through its paces, including an AF accuracy test with an Imatest analysis of sharpness using the ESF approach. This will reveal minute differences in AF accuracy. You'll not only get technical data and shots, but also New Zealand fauna & flora shots. How does that sound?

[RBellavance]

No disrespect meant to anyone, and I found the review useful and informative... but IMHO, the fact that neither camera had AF micro-adjustments applied pretty much invalidates the AF accuracy tests, and makes it pointless to use them for sharpness comparison purposes.

With the resolutions sensors have now reached, it is (again IMHO) absolutely mandatory to perform AF adjustments for each individual lenses/camera combination. And that's for all brands, not just Pentax. The "Autofocus reality" series of article at LensRental.com (LensRentals.com - Autofocus Reality Part 1: Center-Point, Single-Shot Accuracy) was a real eye-opener in that respect.