Is the K-5 IIs dangerous...

Jim Radcliffe · 01-30-2013, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by jbinpg

Sure. Here are a couple of 100% crops of an (un)willing subject's eye. Of course, the differences would be easier to see at native image size but I think they will still be noticeable knocked down. Skin pores and eye structures are crisper on the IIs. My DA* 300/4 was set up on a tripod and left in place while I just attached the two cameras without moving anything. Shot at 1/125s, f6.7, ISO200, on-camera flash set to -1.0ev. Both images received the exact same post processing including boosting exposure +0.67ev. The IIs definitely has a cooler rendition here but since both cameras were set to use AWB with flash, a minute difference in lighting may be the culprit. I will know more as I use the IIs as far as rendering goes. K5 followed by K5IIs. - Jack

The fine detail is quite clear to me in the K5 IIs shot.. note the skin under the eye and compare it to the original K5. There is a clear difference in the detail between the two shots.
Not sure what all the hand wringing is about here. The results are what would be expected in both of these photos and in my own work with both cameras.

**jbinpg** · 01-30-2013, 10:09 AM

Sorry, Anvh, I won't be able to supply a set of images for your request. The degree of sharpening of an image in post is subjective so what I think works and what you can tolerate are likely different.. That is why you need to find yourself a IIs and play around yourself.

Jack

Anvh · 01-30-2013, 10:17 AM

Jack it's quite easy, you did not sharpen the K5 image enough.
Simply sharpen it to the point it match the sharpens of the S version and then see if then look at the details and any "defects" the sharpening might bring.

The K5 need more sharpening because the image was blurred by the AA filter so you need to do some intput sharpening.
It's just the nature of the sensor, sicne the S version doesnt have AA filter it means you don't need to do input sharpening.
It's a standard sharpening procedure.

John Bee already did that with RAW files from a review site and the result are very close together, i;m curious about the real world.
Adam showed some photos as well but those differnce are very big actually so i suspect something actually went wrong there.

That the S verion looks sharper without any processing is a given, but that it also capture more detail is something i'm very curious about.
Sure the image isn't blurred so there must be more details but so far i've not seen any proof of that.

ps. if you put them up for download i could have a go at it.

Anvh · 01-30-2013, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Jim Radcliffe

The fine detail is quite clear to me in the K5 IIs shot.. note the skin under the eye and compare it to the original K5. There is a clear difference in the detail between the two shots.
Not sure what all the hand wringing is about here. The results are what would be expected in both of these photos and in my own work with both cameras.

Would you please do something for me?
It's very simple, download those images to your computer and put a circle around a detail that is in the S version and not in the normal one. I'm talking about a detail that is really missing not detail that is more visable.
And then upload it back up again to here.

Jim Radcliffe · 01-30-2013, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

Would you please do something for me?
It's very simple, download those images to your computer and put a circle around a detail that is in the S version and not in the normal one. I'm talking about a detail that is really missing not detail that is more visable.
And then upload it back up again to here.

No, I will not waste time doing this. I used the K5 for well over a year and know very well how much sharpening can be performed on images from that camera before the end result begins to degrade due to over sharpening. I think you are missing the point altogether... The K5 IIs has better resolution due to the lack of the AA and requires less work in post. If you disagree, well, you are certainly entitled to do so.

If you are convinced the original K5 is a match for the K5 IIs "with proper sharpening techniques/application"... then by all means, use the original K5. Mine is for sale.

Digitalis · 01-30-2013, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

So the K5 did capture those details, that's what i meant with show me details the K5 didn't capture but it seems it didn't miss any. Correctly aplying input sharpening should bring those fine details out more.

well that is the problem if you sharpened a K5 image to the level where it was comparable to the K5IIs you will have oversharpened - besides you cannot ever completely recover detail from an image that has been blurred by an AA filter - there are de-convolution filters out there but their effectiveness is rather questionable. As a studio photogapher I will always choose the camera that provides the sharpest output- just as I did when I bought a D800E instead of the regular D800 - you see differences between them too.

Alizarine · 01-30-2013, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Jim Radcliffe

the lack of the AA and requires less work in post

Quite one of the reasons I chose the K-5 IIs over the II and the Classic.

Anvh · 01-31-2013, 06:06 AM

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/207505-pentax-k-5-iis-vs-k-5-ii-take-two.html

Okay now tell me again the photos of the normal version look oversharpened.

Sure technically this is cheating and the S version should look better but the normal version under went the processing very well if you ask me. I doubt you can even tell them apart at these zoom levels so... how much of a differnce would it make for a real print?

Now i would love to see someone finally point me out to the details i'm missing, if they are so easy to spot for you guys why not point them out?

@Jim & Alizarine , sharpening does not need to take more time, my is for example done automaticly by lightroom when importing. It sees what lens and camera i used and it aplies the correct preset. Removing moire however does take more time since you can not automate the process.
I know that moire is not much more then with the normal version but how ever you turn it it is more likely you get it, so... i would spend more time in processing with a camera without AA filter. Thats not a bad thing if you get something for in return.

Thats how i've set it up though, your experience will indeed be different that's why i'm trying to cut to the core of things.

Last edited by Anvh; 01-31-2013 at 06:46 AM.

**bjdavey** · 01-31-2013, 06:30 AM

I have both the K5 and the iiS. While I loved the K5, I was frequently disappointed by the level of sharpness and clarity, and spent a lot of time in PP trying to achieve the image results I desired. Now that I have the iiS, I spend almost no time in PP, and am continuously delighted by the results. I was intending to continue using the K5 classic as a backup/2nd body, but am so happy with the iiS that I am now considering buying another. Just a simple user perspective from someone who has both.

Anvh · 01-31-2013, 06:45 AM

great it's working for you bjdavey, get indeed another one. It will make the processing easier.

goubejp · 02-02-2013, 02:04 AM

Another example of K5IIs bird shots... lots of details and no moiré...

100 % crop; no accentuation, FA*600 at F8, 1/250, iso 250

WerTicus · 02-08-2013, 08:01 AM

If you were considering a K-52s but decided against it because of the moire issue, then you'd logically buy a K-52 not a K-5. Because of the autofocus.

The K-30 isnt in the same league as the K-5 series because it only has 12bit raw. It does do some things better than the original K-5 however.

Anvh · 02-09-2013, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by goubejp

Another example of K5IIs bird shots... lots of details and no moiré...

There seems to be some pattern moire in the last photo but i doubt an AA filter would have prevented that.

01-30-2013, 10:17 AM	#123
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Jack it's quite easy, you did not sharpen the K5 image enough. Simply sharpen it to the point it match the sharpens of the S version and then see if then look at the details and any "defects" the sharpening might bring. The K5 need more sharpening because the image was blurred by the AA filter so you need to do some intput sharpening. It's just the nature of the sensor, sicne the S version doesnt have AA filter it means you don't need to do input sharpening. It's a standard sharpening procedure. John Bee already did that with RAW files from a review site and the result are very close together, i;m curious about the real world. Adam showed some photos as well but those differnce are very big actually so i suspect something actually went wrong there. That the S verion looks sharper without any processing is a given, but that it also capture more detail is something i'm very curious about. Sure the image isn't blurred so there must be more details but so far i've not seen any proof of that. ps. if you put them up for download i could have a go at it. Last edited by Anvh; 01-30-2013 at 10:27 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version E-mail to a Friend	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

01-30-2013, 09:35 AM	#121
Jim Radcliffe Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	Originally posted by jbinpg Sure. Here are a couple of 100% crops of an (un)willing subject's eye. Of course, the differences would be easier to see at native image size but I think they will still be noticeable knocked down. Skin pores and eye structures are crisper on the IIs. My DA* 300/4 was set up on a tripod and left in place while I just attached the two cameras without moving anything. Shot at 1/125s, f6.7, ISO200, on-camera flash set to -1.0ev. Both images received the exact same post processing including boosting exposure +0.67ev. The IIs definitely has a cooler rendition here but since both cameras were set to use AWB with flash, a minute difference in lighting may be the culprit. I will know more as I use the IIs as far as rendering goes. K5 followed by K5IIs. - Jack The fine detail is quite clear to me in the K5 IIs shot.. note the skin under the eye and compare it to the original K5. There is a clear difference in the detail between the two shots. Not sure what all the hand wringing is about here. The results are what would be expected in both of these photos and in my own work with both cameras.

01-30-2013, 10:09 AM	#122
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,742	Sorry, Anvh, I won't be able to supply a set of images for your request. The degree of sharpening of an image in post is subjective so what I think works and what you can tolerate are likely different.. That is why you need to find yourself a IIs and play around yourself. Jack

01-30-2013, 10:25 AM	#124
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Jim Radcliffe The fine detail is quite clear to me in the K5 IIs shot.. note the skin under the eye and compare it to the original K5. There is a clear difference in the detail between the two shots. Not sure what all the hand wringing is about here. The results are what would be expected in both of these photos and in my own work with both cameras. Would you please do something for me? It's very simple, download those images to your computer and put a circle around a detail that is in the S version and not in the normal one. I'm talking about a detail that is really missing not detail that is more visable. And then upload it back up again to here.

01-30-2013, 10:39 AM	#125
Jim Radcliffe Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	Originally posted by Anvh Would you please do something for me? It's very simple, download those images to your computer and put a circle around a detail that is in the S version and not in the normal one. I'm talking about a detail that is really missing not detail that is more visable. And then upload it back up again to here. No, I will not waste time doing this. I used the K5 for well over a year and know very well how much sharpening can be performed on images from that camera before the end result begins to degrade due to over sharpening. I think you are missing the point altogether... The K5 IIs has better resolution due to the lack of the AA and requires less work in post. If you disagree, well, you are certainly entitled to do so. If you are convinced the original K5 is a match for the K5 IIs "with proper sharpening techniques/application"... then by all means, use the original K5. Mine is for sale.

01-30-2013, 05:33 PM	#126
Digitalis Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Adelaide. Posts: 9,509	Originally posted by Anvh So the K5 did capture those details, that's what i meant with show me details the K5 didn't capture but it seems it didn't miss any. Correctly aplying input sharpening should bring those fine details out more. well that is the problem if you sharpened a K5 image to the level where it was comparable to the K5IIs you will have oversharpened - besides you cannot ever completely recover detail from an image that has been blurred by an AA filter - there are de-convolution filters out there but their effectiveness is rather questionable. As a studio photogapher I will always choose the camera that provides the sharpest output- just as I did when I bought a D800E instead of the regular D800 - you see differences between them too.

01-30-2013, 07:45 PM	#127
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Jim Radcliffe the lack of the AA and requires less work in post Quite one of the reasons I chose the K-5 IIs over the II and the Classic.

01-31-2013, 06:06 AM	#128
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/207505-pentax-k-5-iis-vs-k-5-ii-take-two.html Okay now tell me again the photos of the normal version look oversharpened. Sure technically this is cheating and the S version should look better but the normal version under went the processing very well if you ask me. I doubt you can even tell them apart at these zoom levels so... how much of a differnce would it make for a real print? Now i would love to see someone finally point me out to the details i'm missing, if they are so easy to spot for you guys why not point them out? @Jim & Alizarine , sharpening does not need to take more time, my is for example done automaticly by lightroom when importing. It sees what lens and camera i used and it aplies the correct preset. Removing moire however does take more time since you can not automate the process. I know that moire is not much more then with the normal version but how ever you turn it it is more likely you get it, so... i would spend more time in processing with a camera without AA filter. Thats not a bad thing if you get something for in return. Thats how i've set it up though, your experience will indeed be different that's why i'm trying to cut to the core of things. Last edited by Anvh; 01-31-2013 at 06:46 AM.

01-31-2013, 06:30 AM	#129
bjdavey Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Alexandria, VA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 155	I have both the K5 and the iiS. While I loved the K5, I was frequently disappointed by the level of sharpness and clarity, and spent a lot of time in PP trying to achieve the image results I desired. Now that I have the iiS, I spend almost no time in PP, and am continuously delighted by the results. I was intending to continue using the K5 classic as a backup/2nd body, but am so happy with the iiS that I am now considering buying another. Just a simple user perspective from someone who has both.

01-31-2013, 06:45 AM	#130
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	great it's working for you bjdavey, get indeed another one. It will make the processing easier.

02-02-2013, 02:04 AM	#131
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	Another example of K5IIs bird shots... lots of details and no moiré... 100 % crop; no accentuation, FA*600 at F8, 1/250, iso 250

02-08-2013, 08:01 AM	#132
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	If you were considering a K-52s but decided against it because of the moire issue, then you'd logically buy a K-52 not a K-5. Because of the autofocus. The K-30 isnt in the same league as the K-5 series because it only has 12bit raw. It does do some things better than the original K-5 however.

02-09-2013, 09:18 AM	#133
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by goubejp Another example of K5IIs bird shots... lots of details and no moiré... There seems to be some pattern moire in the last photo but i doubt an AA filter would have prevented that.