[JohnBee]

in the hands of someone who is, at best, is an advanced amateur? I have been taking photos for 50 years, and understand photographic basics pretty well, but am afraid this camera might be beyond my casual photography capabilities. Here are my questions.

1. Is avoiding moire a difficult thing to do without an AA filter?

2. I would be most interested in using it with modest lenses, including basic zooms (such as either the Sigma 17-70, Pentax 17-70, or Pentax 18-135). Would this camera either point up the flaws in the lenses or simply not produce sharp enough photos to justify the weight and price over something like the K-30 or a m4/3 (that I am using presently)? I like precision and sharpness, but would it require better lenses to achieve those?

3. At $1,049, rather than $1,299, it would appear that it could be sold in a few months for near the $1,049 price. Is that reasonable to expect?

The issue of moire is highly person dependent, however, if you are the type of person who would rather not have to risk dealing with moire then get a K-5 II with some fine glass and you'll be right as rain. To which I'd add, the K-5 II can produce images that are every bit as sharp and detailed as the K-5 IIs. - it's a win win.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 11-23-2012 at 08:18 PM.

[baro-nite]

I don't think it would be fair to suggest it's going to happen, until it actually happens.

Moire will be noticeable more often on the IIs than on the II or original K-5; that's just the nature of a Bayer array. Whether this ever rises to the level of "moire disaster" depends on whose opinion it is and what the shot is to be used for; for a wedding pro, noticeable moire could well be regarded as disaster. For me it's just a question of small potential gain vs. small potential loss; not a big deal either way, and I think realistically this is also true for the vast majority of hobbyists. Disaster just isn't in the equation for me; I'm all too used to taking unusable shots.

[normhead]

Whether this ever rises to the level of "moire disaster" depends on whose opinion it is and what the shot is to be used for; for a wedding pro, noticeable moire could well be regarded as disaster.

One of my buddies, a "wedding pro" actually shot a wedding in MF (thinking he was shooting in AF) and all his shots came out soft. He actually found some software that fixed everything up enough to be acceptable. So I'm not sure a even wedding pro would care. In any case, I'm not convinced having a K-5 or a K-5 IIs or a D7000 or a D-600 is going to make any real difference at all for anyone. The only place I expect the K5IIs to make a difference would be on a few landscape shots...taken on a rigid tripod with the 2 second delay to avoid mirror shake, on a day when there was no wind so the leaves weren't blowing and the tripod wasn't vibrating. Maybe 20% of my shots are taken like that. I suspect it won't really provide me with much if any advantage. I'm guessing it won't cause me much pain either. It's just like the "cool" thing at the moment.

[rawr]

Disaster just isn't in the equation for me; I'm all too used to taking unusable shots.

So it's not just me?
Phew! I'm glad I'm not alone.

[Sandy Hancock]

Just starting to import the 1100+ shots I took today at the Gorgeous Festival in McLaren Vale.
I can't believe the resolution of this thing.
Yes, there are some cases of moire with some fabrics (tulle mainly), but some of the 100% crops are quite remarkable.
Contractual obligations may limit what I can reveal, but I'll get something up tomorrow.
All I can say at this stage is *holy moly* this is an incredible camera.

[Elliot]

I guess there is no agreement on the potential of moire in most amateur experiences, though I'm interested in what Sandy has found with the tulle fabric (and anything else). It sounds as though the photographer and his or her expectations and skills is what makes the difference anyway. I read some information on the Nikon site related to the D800 and D800e suggesting that for most people, the D800 (with the AA filter) makes more sense in that avoiding moire takes care, more akin to shooting with medium or large format cameras that do not have anti-alias filters or low pass filters.

As to lenses, I assume that the K-5 II, K-5 IIs, and original K-5 are all about as demanding. I have seen some really sharp (web) photos even with the kit lenses on the K-30, and so I expect there would be no problem there.

[frank]

It's amazing the line up of people saying what you can't use the K-5 IIs for. People who don't own the camera. Meanwhile , from people who actually own the camera. I haven't seen a complaint. Am I missing some great string of complaints somewhere that make people think they are going to have moire problems? The only moire I've seen wouldn't even be noticeable even of a full size print unless you had the exact same photo to compare it with. Others would be solved by a little blurring applied to a very small area of a print. Not as much as I often do for say leaves etc that sometimes find their way into a photo. I'd be way happy listening to these complaints, if I'd heard from even one person who actually had a print rendered unusable by moire. Until that happens I'll probably write this kind of complaint to Nervous Nellies.

Exactly! I've used the K5IIs for over 2 weeks, took a few hundred photos, mostly people photos, and all those people had clothes on. I've never seen even one photo ruined by moire.

[creampuff]

Fears of moire are overrated and if I may say so played up by amateur measurebators who are probably better in scrutinizing test images but who in all intents can't shoot for nuts. Where I am, there is more interest in the K-5IIs over the K-5II and many are already ditching their obsolete K-5s.

[baro-nite]

if I may say so

Sure, you may say so. Nothing says "I have a strong argument" better than an unprovable blanket ad hominem assertion.

Some of the people singing the praises of the IIs are probably at the same level of those you deride as unable to "shoot for nuts". That is, they'll see neither moire nor any advantage in sharpness due to the missing filter. But they'll have the satisfaction of knowing they aren't using an "obsolete" camera.

[gooseta]

to the op, using the 18-135 on the 5iis would not do its sensor good. I would sell the 18-135, buy a K-30 or K-5, and invest in some glass, maybe a Sigma 30/1.4 to go with your 17-70

[Elliot]

to the op, using the 18-135 on the 5iis would not do its sensor good. I would sell the 18-135, buy a K-30 or K-5, and invest in some glass, maybe a Sigma 30/1.4 to go with your 17-70

Ah, just to clarify, I have none of the lenses mentioned. I probably would go with the 17-70, though.

[gooseta]

ah, well seeing as you have enough money to get a 5iis and 17-70, I would still get the K-30, 17-70, and a prime of your choice (I still recommend the sigma 30/1.4)

[normhead]

OK I'm curious, what about these numbers from photozone would not look good with a 18-135 from 24mm and 50mm on a K-5. I really wish people would have a clue before they run off. If you like the 17-70 fine. If you need to dump on the 18-135 to make your point, you probably don't have a point. Same as the guy who wrote the photozone review, who didn't check out the details of his own data.

[Sandy Hancock]

Here is a shot showing some pretty nasty colourful moire: taken with the K-5 IIs and Sigma EXII 70-200 at f5.6



Mind you, this is a *massive* crop and the only one of over 1100 shots I took with the camera that day, including over a hundred of Butterfly Boucher, the wearer of this tulle-topped shirt.

There were quite a few which showed this sort of effect though:



The only problem is that this was taken with my K-5 (i.e. with an AA filter ) and my FA31, also at f5.6. The vast majority I took with the K-5 IIs were no worse than this example, so I get the impression it only fares much worse than the K-5 in extreme cases.

[RobG]

the only problem is that this was taken with my k-5 (i.e. with an aa filter ) and my fa31, also at f5.6. The vast majority i took with the k-5 iis were no worse than this example, so i get the impression it only fares much worse than the k-5 in extreme cases.

roflmao!!! :d:d:d