Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-26-2012, 01:21 AM   #31
Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,720
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
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.
Uh, do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

11-26-2012, 10:09 AM   #32
Senior Member
gooseta's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Posts: 157
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
Why the heck would you buy a $450 18-135 if it has massive vignetting at wide open and f5.6 at 18mm and 50mm, and although it has good center sharpness at 18, the corners are AWFUL! at 24mm it's pretty damn good but from there all of the focal lengths the corners and borders are horrible, at 135 it's off the chart how bad it is. It also has pretty big ca issues, and why would you buy this over the 17-70, which it can't compete with in ANY area except focal length. AND it's only $30 more at b and h!!! And you get corners which are not mush! hooray
11-26-2012, 12:56 PM   #33
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 47
QuoteOriginally posted by gooseta Quote
Why the heck would you buy a $450 18-135 if it has massive vignetting at wide open and f5.6 at 18mm and 50mm, and although it has good center sharpness at 18, the corners are AWFUL! at 24mm it's pretty damn good but from there all of the focal lengths the corners and borders are horrible, at 135 it's off the chart how bad it is. It also has pretty big ca issues, and why would you buy this over the 17-70, which it can't compete with in ANY area except focal length. AND it's only $30 more at b and h!!! And you get corners which are not mush! hooray
All I ever see here is people who really like the 18-135, and those who think it isn't even a proper lens. I've seen both good and bad sample photos using it, but if one wants weather resistance in a fairly standard walkaround lens, is there a better option? In theory, the 16-50, but possible SDM issues kind of deflate that idea. Sure, Sigma offers a lens or two that will work, but they aren't weather sealed. Some of us need a weather sealed lens for our weather sealed body. People tend to forget that there are some of us who are buying into the system primarily because it is about the only option out there for weather resistance/sealing.
11-26-2012, 01:03 PM - 1 Like   #34
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 47
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
Uh, do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
He does, but only by adjusting the K-5 II files & leaving the IIs files alone. I still haven't seen him optimally adjust both a II and IIs photo. If he did that, and the II looks as good as the IIs, then I'll start paying attention. I've played around with a number of the IIs samples out there and there is considerable leeway for sharpening in post.

11-26-2012, 01:38 PM   #35
Senior Member
gooseta's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Posts: 157
I actually bought an 18-135. then returned it because i thought there was a defect with the corners, got a new one from amazon and was still extremely soft so i got myself a 17-70
11-26-2012, 01:53 PM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
QuoteQuote:
Why the heck would you buy a $450 18-135 if it has massive vignetting at wide open and f5.6 at 18mm and 50mm, and although it has good center sharpness at 18, the corners are AWFUL! at 24mm it's pretty damn good but from there all of the focal lengths the corners and borders are horrible, at 135 it's off the chart how bad it is.
You are embellishing a bit. I have no use for a lens like the 17-70. It's as simple as that. @ 70, it's fallen out of the excellent range at every F stop. Who knows where that starts? My guess is for the range above 55 mm, you're going to want something sharper. IN that range it has no use, well portarits maybe, a little of that softness won't hurt. At least with the 18-135, it's center sharp... if I center a flower and the rest is bokeh, I'm not even going to notice how soft the edges are. My complaint with the 17-70 is, it's too short for a general purpose walk around lens. I can get a Tamron 17-50 that's both 2.8 and much sharper in the range where.

I take a lot of shots like this....


Does that edge softness make a difference? Not at all because it has excellent center sharpness. The 18-135 has better center sharpness at 135 than the 17-70 has at 70. Look, maybe the 17-70 just matches your style... maybe it's great for you. Maybe the 18-135 matches my style and is great for me. I don't have a problem with that. But as i said, your need to trash the 18-135 is pointless. You don't have to trash another lens to tell someone how much you like yours. Just tell him why you like it and let him make up his own mind.

I use this lens a lot. I think I know how to use it. It's good enough that if you use it to it's strength it's a top notch lens. Do I need to change to my DA*60-250 for landscape shots that need edge sharpness? Of course I do. But I'd be doing the same thing with the 17-70. And the 18-135 gives me excellent center sharpness right to 135mm. That saves a lot of lens changes.
11-26-2012, 07:51 PM   #37
Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,720
QuoteOriginally posted by NVSteve Quote
He does, but only by adjusting the K-5 II files & leaving the IIs files alone. I still haven't seen him optimally adjust both a II and IIs photo. If he did that, and the II looks as good as the IIs, then I'll start paying attention. I've played around with a number of the IIs samples out there and there is considerable leeway for sharpening in post.
Ah, ok. It's one thing to claim that the advantage of the K-5iis is small over the K-5ii, but another thing to claim there's no advantage at all.
11-26-2012, 08:17 PM - 2 Likes   #38
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I expect to take over a thousand photos with my new K-5 IIs this afternoon/evening, mainly of people (in clothes )
If there are any moire problems I'll let you know....
I suppose most of those using the K5 IIs are delving seriously into nude photography due to the serious moire issues...

11-26-2012, 09:05 PM   #39
Veteran Member
xhanatos's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 379
I don't know about nude photography, with the camera's inherent issue with moire, stretchmarks and wrinkles would be quite problematic.

**SCOFF** moire issue.
I've taken almost 1500 shots with the K5IIs and none of my shots are worse than the K7. And as a street shooter, I've been predominantly shooting clothed people
11-27-2012, 01:41 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I suppose most of those using the K5 IIs are delving seriously into nude photography due to the serious moire issues...
Ah, good idea! lol
11-27-2012, 03:04 AM   #41
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
Uh, do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
Have a peek at these: K-5 IIs vs K-5 II

Both files were sharpened. Though the K-5 II was deblurred to compensate for the AA filter. Whereas the K-5 IIs did not receive such an adjustment. Though what stands-out here, is where the K-5 II is proving to contain as much detail as the IIs, while holding a significant advantage in moire. And that is what I based my statement from.

Having said that, I've been beta testing the latest Topaz Denoise(v3) over the past few weeks and found that even more detail can be coaxed from the K-5 II that is seen in the sample shown above. And so, I'm thinking such tools will likely push the risks vs benefit scale even further in favor of the K-5 II.

Hope this helps.
11-27-2012, 03:10 AM   #42
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by NVSteve Quote
He does, but only by adjusting the K-5 II files & leaving the IIs files alone. I still haven't seen him optimally adjust both a II and IIs photo. If he did that, and the II looks as good as the IIs, then I'll start paying attention. I've played around with a number of the IIs samples out there and there is considerable leeway for sharpening in post.
I don't remember if I updated my last case study here or not, though I processed both files for sharpening toward the end of the DPeview thread. The main issue being, that the K-5 IIs doesn't tolerate much sharpening in contrast to the K-5 II and so I think the initial results may be misleading for many people.

Having said that, the samples posted above were both sharpened to match.
11-27-2012, 04:01 AM   #43
Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,720
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Both files were sharpened. Though the K-5 II was deblurred to compensate for the AA filter. Whereas the K-5 IIs did not receive such an adjustment. Though what stands-out here, is where the K-5 II is proving to contain as much detail as the IIs, while holding a significant advantage in moire. And that is what I based my statement from.
So you didn't process them in the same way.

QuoteQuote:
Having said that, I've been beta testing the latest Topaz Denoise(v3) over the past few weeks and found that even more detail can be coaxed from the K-5 II that is seen in the sample shown above. And so, I'm thinking such tools will likely push the risks vs benefit scale even further in favor of the K-5 II. Hope this helps.
Perhaps, but I don't personally want to have to spend another US$80 to buy another software tool to spend more time post processing my images if I don't have to. It might help others who are yet to decide between the K-5ii and K-5iis.

I don't really see the validity of claiming that the K-5ii is better than the K-5iis on the basis that more post processing of the images from the K5ii can produce more detail than K-5iis images which don't receive the same post processing. It's hardly a logical or scientific comparison.

So far I'm very happy with my K-5iis and I haven't seen any photos ruined by moire. I don't shoot glamour, fashion or weddings, so I don't anticipate that I am likely to see many photos significantly affected by moire, and I'm not worried about it. I am not saying that my K-5iis is necessarily better than the K-5ii, but it's a heck of a lot better than my K-7, and for me, that's good enough.
11-27-2012, 04:04 AM - 1 Like   #44
Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,720
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I suppose most of those using the K5 IIs are delving seriously into nude photography due to the serious moire issues...
Maybe I should try that - "Excuse me, but my camera suffers rather badly with moire and your clothes have a problematic pattern. Would you mind taking them off?"
11-27-2012, 04:44 AM   #45
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
So you didn't process them in the same way.
Why would you deblurr the K-5 IIs?

QuoteQuote:
Perhaps, but I don't personally want to have to spend another US$80 to buy another software tool to spend more time post processing my images if I don't have to. It might help others who are yet to decide between the K-5ii and K-5iis.
The same deblur is available in Raw Therapee for free.

QuoteQuote:
I don't really see the validity of claiming that the K-5ii is better than the K-5iis on the basis that more post processing of the images from the K5ii can produce more detail than K-5iis images which don't receive the same post processing. It's hardly a logical or scientific comparison.
The thing we can rely on here is that detail doesn't come out of thin air. Therefore, when we deblur the K-5 II and find similar detail, we can be assured that both systems are effectively capturing similar amounts of information. However, the K-5 II comes out much softer due to the AA filter and so it becomes necessary to counter the effects of this in software. And so were left with a trade-off I suppose.

Last edited by JohnBee; 11-27-2012 at 04:50 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, lenses, pentax, pentax k-5, photos, price
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 IIs vs K-5 II - can you tell the difference? JohnBee Pentax K-5 85 11-19-2012 10:48 PM
K-5 IIs is no longer available for pre-order Eric Auer Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 10-20-2012 06:08 AM
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
Oct. 15th is creeping up on us. Anyone else Impatiently waiting for the K-5 IIs ? Isnwm Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 10-03-2012 01:16 AM
Facts and rumors regarding the 16.28 Megapixel sensor in K- 5 II and K-5 IIs F-pix Pentax K-5 11 09-28-2012 08:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top