K-5 IIs vs K-5 II - can you tell the difference?

wahid_satu · 11-15-2012, 04:11 AM

A comparison to show the result. Mine's post processed using fastone image viewer, adjusting the levels, colors and applying the default USM Sharpness.

Attached Images

Clavius · 11-15-2012, 04:49 AM

By now, I've seen numerous comparissons, and there is a difference between the two... But not even the ones where the sharpness increase of the K5IIs is obvious justifies me upgrading from K5 classic to IIs.

Class A · 11-15-2012, 05:52 AM

Thanks, John, for your contributions to a fair comparison between cameras with and without Bayer-AA-filter.

I'd like to confirm that using capture-sharpening for the K-5 II and not the K-5 IIs is exactly the right thing to do. Only the former uses a Bayer-AA-filter whose effect needs to be undone. An identical processing of both images would be as wrong as using the same processing for two images where one has been deliberately underexposed to protect highlights, or playing back a tape without Dolby de-emphasis even though it has been recorded using Dolby emphasis.

BTW, the source material is not ideal because the focus points are not the same. They are better, though, than the PF comparisons involving very soft shots from a K-5 that apparently has focus issues with at least some lenses and far away subjects.

JohnBee · 11-15-2012, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by wahid_satu

A comparison to show the result. Mine's post processed using fastone image viewer, adjusting the levels, colors and applying the default USM Sharpness.

Wow that really cleaned things up.
I'm going to try my hand at this and see what I can do with RT using the same approach. (very interesting btw).

JohnBee · 11-15-2012, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Class A

I'd like to confirm that using capture-sharpening for the K-5 II and not the K-5 IIs is exactly the right thing to do. Only the former uses a Bayer-AA-filter whose effect needs to be undone. An identical processing of both images would be as wrong as using the same processing for two images where one has been deliberately underexposed to protect highlights, or playing back a tape without Dolby de-emphasis even though it has been recorded using Dolby emphasis.

I wonder if someone could be motivated to code a deblur script to do the job? GordonB perhaps?

Quote:

BTW, the source material is not ideal because the focus points are not the same. They are better, though, than the PF comparisons involving very soft shots from a K-5 that apparently has focus issues with at least some lenses and far away subjects.

Yes I saw that. Looking at the fur above the red cloth sample, it becomes obvious that the two units had difference focusing points which is to bad, though I also think there is enough detail that falling on the same focusing plane to draw some fairly good conclusions:

ie. from what I can see, the K-5 II can match and in many cases exceed what the K-5 IIs can capture.

JohnBee · 11-15-2012, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

By now, I've seen numerous comparissons, and there is a difference between the two... But not even the ones where the sharpness increase of the K5IIs is obvious justifies me upgrading from K5 classic to IIs.

Based on my own experiences, moire is a cruel mistress.
I shot on a system without an AA filter in the past thinking I'd be okay due to the fact that I shot mainly landscapes. And boy was I wrong.

From my own experiences, moire and aliasing are the type of things that creeps up on you, until the day where it magically appears in every photo you've ever taken.

Case and point, it didn't pay off for me in the end, though I do feel quite positive about the lack of an AA filter on higher MP sensors such as the 645D or D800E for example.

Anvh · 11-15-2012, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by adi3000

Of course there are small artifacts, but I squeeze almost everything form the images and I cannot do more with K5II and still in this stage it has some blur. I can match sharpness and clarity but k5II will become more noisy then k5IIs.

But how come that the artifacts are more pronounced with your S photo then with the normal version?

adi3000 · 11-15-2012, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

But how come that the artifacts are more pronounced with your S photo then with the normal version?

It is not. In K5II are more pronounced and still more blur.

JohnBee · 11-15-2012, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by adi3000

It is not. In K5II are more pronounced and still more blur.

I'm thinking processing is as much to blame at this stage. Which is partly why I presented unprocessed images at the introduction of the thread. Aside from that, I'm thinking the higher ISO images may be getting the best of the assessment in the end. Having said that, consider the differences between nominal sensitivities and the higher ones in the following crops:

K-5 IIs

K-5 II

Hope this helps.

vonBaloney · 11-15-2012, 11:49 AM

Has anyone figured out if the AA filters on the classic K-5 and the K-5 II are of equal "strength", i.e. is there any difference between the two cameras in terms of the final image? Pentax claims not, but it would be nice to know for sure. (Obviously there are a few differences in features, AF, etc.)

JohnBee · 11-15-2012, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

Has anyone figured out if the AA filters on the classic K-5 and the K-5 II are of equal "strength", i.e. is there any difference between the two cameras in terms of the final image? Pentax claims not, but it would be nice to know for sure. (Obviously there are a few differences in features, AF, etc.)

I've always found the K-5 II filter to be rather strong, though I don't get that from any of the K-5 II images I've seen to date. That being said, if Pentax didn't modify the AA filter, there is still the possibility that they improved something in front of the sensor.

Anvh · 11-15-2012, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by adi3000

It is not. In K5II are more pronounced and still more blur.

Then your looking at a different photo maybe, did you swab the photos by accident?

Anvh · 11-15-2012, 03:03 PM

If not then please point me to the differences, i already have but you haven't so it's your turn now.

Anvh · 11-15-2012, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I'm thinking processing is as much to blame at this stage. Which is partly why I presented unprocessed images at the introduction of the thread. Aside from that, I'm thinking the higher ISO images may be getting the best of the assessment in the end. Having said that, consider the differences between nominal sensitivities and the higher ones in the following crops:

Was talking about his images, he said he could push the S version further but i'm actually seeing more sharpening artefacts with the more pushed version of the mkIIs then with his less sharpened normal version.
So i'm missing his proof.

As for your examples.
I don't see much if any details or increase in resolution with the mkIIs shots, i find the moire more concerning then the sharper look. The edited version of the mkIIs i find actually over-sharpened.

wahid_satu · 11-15-2012, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

Wow that really cleaned things up. I'm going to try my hand at this and see what I can do with RT using the same approach. (very interesting btw).

Am interested to see your results. BTW, I found that if we stick to Amaze demosaic and use the same 5 steps false color suppression, the result is similar to using hphd and 5 steps. Though hphd does it a touch better (I'm splitting hair). This, combined with manual moire removal using lightroom or photoshop or the like, should alleviate some concerns over moire.

Found some info on moire reduction from much more qualified ppl.Bayer moire | LibRaw

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 K-5 II K-5 IIs, e dial issue, Noise	Eder	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	17	06-03-2014 12:33 AM
Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs Now In Stock!	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	24	10-25-2012 03:38 PM
Suggestion K-5 forum renamed to K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs?	Buschmaster	Site Suggestions and Help	2	10-16-2012 02:17 PM
Pentax could we get the K-5 II / K-5 IIs in color please?	Hegemon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	10-14-2012 01:59 AM
Facts and rumors regarding the 16.28 Megapixel sensor in K- 5 II and K-5 IIs	F-pix	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	11	09-28-2012 08:17 AM

11-15-2012, 04:11 AM	#46
wahid_satu Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 96	A comparison to show the result. Mine's post processed using fastone image viewer, adjusting the levels, colors and applying the default USM Sharpness. Attached Images

11-15-2012, 04:49 AM	#47
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	By now, I've seen numerous comparissons, and there is a difference between the two... But not even the ones where the sharpness increase of the K5IIs is obvious justifies me upgrading from K5 classic to IIs.

11-15-2012, 05:52 AM	#48
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Thanks, John, for your contributions to a fair comparison between cameras with and without Bayer-AA-filter. I'd like to confirm that using capture-sharpening for the K-5 II and not the K-5 IIs is exactly the right thing to do. Only the former uses a Bayer-AA-filter whose effect needs to be undone. An identical processing of both images would be as wrong as using the same processing for two images where one has been deliberately underexposed to protect highlights, or playing back a tape without Dolby de-emphasis even though it has been recorded using Dolby emphasis. BTW, the source material is not ideal because the focus points are not the same. They are better, though, than the PF comparisons involving very soft shots from a K-5 that apparently has focus issues with at least some lenses and far away subjects.

11-15-2012, 09:58 AM	#49
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by wahid_satu A comparison to show the result. Mine's post processed using fastone image viewer, adjusting the levels, colors and applying the default USM Sharpness. Wow that really cleaned things up. I'm going to try my hand at this and see what I can do with RT using the same approach. (very interesting btw).

11-15-2012, 10:01 AM	#50
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by Class A I'd like to confirm that using capture-sharpening for the K-5 II and not the K-5 IIs is exactly the right thing to do. Only the former uses a Bayer-AA-filter whose effect needs to be undone. An identical processing of both images would be as wrong as using the same processing for two images where one has been deliberately underexposed to protect highlights, or playing back a tape without Dolby de-emphasis even though it has been recorded using Dolby emphasis. I wonder if someone could be motivated to code a deblur script to do the job? GordonB perhaps? Quote: BTW, the source material is not ideal because the focus points are not the same. They are better, though, than the PF comparisons involving very soft shots from a K-5 that apparently has focus issues with at least some lenses and far away subjects. Yes I saw that. Looking at the fur above the red cloth sample, it becomes obvious that the two units had difference focusing points which is to bad, though I also think there is enough detail that falling on the same focusing plane to draw some fairly good conclusions: ie. from what I can see, the K-5 II can match and in many cases exceed what the K-5 IIs can capture.

11-15-2012, 10:07 AM	#51
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by Clavius By now, I've seen numerous comparissons, and there is a difference between the two... But not even the ones where the sharpness increase of the K5IIs is obvious justifies me upgrading from K5 classic to IIs. Based on my own experiences, moire is a cruel mistress. I shot on a system without an AA filter in the past thinking I'd be okay due to the fact that I shot mainly landscapes. And boy was I wrong. From my own experiences, moire and aliasing are the type of things that creeps up on you, until the day where it magically appears in every photo you've ever taken. Case and point, it didn't pay off for me in the end, though I do feel quite positive about the lack of an AA filter on higher MP sensors such as the 645D or D800E for example.

11-15-2012, 10:35 AM	#52
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by adi3000 Of course there are small artifacts, but I squeeze almost everything form the images and I cannot do more with K5II and still in this stage it has some blur. I can match sharpness and clarity but k5II will become more noisy then k5IIs. But how come that the artifacts are more pronounced with your S photo then with the normal version?

11-15-2012, 11:07 AM	#53
adi3000 New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Bucharest Posts: 20	Originally posted by Anvh But how come that the artifacts are more pronounced with your S photo then with the normal version? It is not. In K5II are more pronounced and still more blur.

11-15-2012, 11:46 AM	#54
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by adi3000 It is not. In K5II are more pronounced and still more blur. I'm thinking processing is as much to blame at this stage. Which is partly why I presented unprocessed images at the introduction of the thread. Aside from that, I'm thinking the higher ISO images may be getting the best of the assessment in the end. Having said that, consider the differences between nominal sensitivities and the higher ones in the following crops: K-5 IIs K-5 II Hope this helps.

11-15-2012, 11:49 AM	#55
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Has anyone figured out if the AA filters on the classic K-5 and the K-5 II are of equal "strength", i.e. is there any difference between the two cameras in terms of the final image? Pentax claims not, but it would be nice to know for sure. (Obviously there are a few differences in features, AF, etc.)

11-15-2012, 12:36 PM	#56
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by vonBaloney Has anyone figured out if the AA filters on the classic K-5 and the K-5 II are of equal "strength", i.e. is there any difference between the two cameras in terms of the final image? Pentax claims not, but it would be nice to know for sure. (Obviously there are a few differences in features, AF, etc.) I've always found the K-5 II filter to be rather strong, though I don't get that from any of the K-5 II images I've seen to date. That being said, if Pentax didn't modify the AA filter, there is still the possibility that they improved something in front of the sensor.

11-15-2012, 03:02 PM	#57
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by adi3000 It is not. In K5II are more pronounced and still more blur. Then your looking at a different photo maybe, did you swab the photos by accident?

11-15-2012, 03:03 PM	#58
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	If not then please point me to the differences, i already have but you haven't so it's your turn now.

11-15-2012, 03:10 PM	#59
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by JohnBee I'm thinking processing is as much to blame at this stage. Which is partly why I presented unprocessed images at the introduction of the thread. Aside from that, I'm thinking the higher ISO images may be getting the best of the assessment in the end. Having said that, consider the differences between nominal sensitivities and the higher ones in the following crops: Was talking about his images, he said he could push the S version further but i'm actually seeing more sharpening artefacts with the more pushed version of the mkIIs then with his less sharpened normal version. So i'm missing his proof. As for your examples. I don't see much if any details or increase in resolution with the mkIIs shots, i find the moire more concerning then the sharper look. The edited version of the mkIIs i find actually over-sharpened.

11-15-2012, 03:48 PM	#60
wahid_satu Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 96	Originally posted by JohnBee Wow that really cleaned things up. I'm going to try my hand at this and see what I can do with RT using the same approach. (very interesting btw). Am interested to see your results. BTW, I found that if we stick to Amaze demosaic and use the same 5 steps false color suppression, the result is similar to using hphd and 5 steps. Though hphd does it a touch better (I'm splitting hair). This, combined with manual moire removal using lightroom or photoshop or the like, should alleviate some concerns over moire. Found some info on moire reduction from much more qualified ppl.Bayer moire \| LibRaw