[Elliot]

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?

[photoman1]

1.Don't get the K-5iis if you are going to shoot people, wildlife or man-made structures. The K-5iis is great if you shoot landscapes or macro.

2.If you are going to use these lenses and don't plan to upgrade within the next 2-3 years, the K-5 @$750 is fine. However, if you choose to get some manual primes the K-5iis might be a better camera.

3.not sure

[Adam]

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?

Yeah, but you never know when the price is going to drop for good- it could be in 3 months, 6 months, or earlier. Nobody knows!

I've decided to stick with cameras that have an AA filter before of moire, however. Right now the K-5 II is also $1049:
Pentax K-5 II Digital SLR Camera 12016 B&H Photo Video

[Elliot]

I decided not to go for the K-5 IIs given that I do shoot people and wildlife and architecture as well as landscapes. As an all-around camera, rather than a special purpose one, it seems as though the moire might be an issue.

The question is then whether a K-30 or K-5 (or K-5 II) is the better bet. I would like the lighter and smaller size of the K-30, and the indications are that the IQ differences are quite small for most uses. I'm less concerned about battery life, 2nd LCD, HDMI-output, etc. I would be printing up to 13x19" and mostly smaller.

[interested_observer]

I decided not to go for the K-5 IIs given that I do shoot people and wildlife and architecture as well as landscapes. As an all-around camera, rather than a special purpose one, it seems as though the moire might be an issue.

The question is then whether a K-30 or K-5 (or K-5 II) is the better bet. I would like the lighter and smaller size of the K-30, and the indications are that the IQ differences are quite small for most uses. I'm less concerned about battery life, 2nd LCD, HDMI-output, etc. I would be printing up to 13x19" and mostly smaller.

I have the K5 for nearly a year now. I recently have done some printing at the 20" x 30" at Costco. The output was absolutely spectacular. I also believe that there are printers better than Costco that may be able to pull a tad more out. In my view, it comes down to ISO 80 (the K5 and K5II does it and the K30 does not), and the low light focusing (the K5II does it and the K5 and K30 does not). The K5II does the ISO 80 and low light focusing, but it that worth the about $500 (over the K5) difference to you.

[tabl10s]

Why wouldn't you want more detail in photos? How do you think you could develop moire in people pics?

[baro-nite]

How do you think you could develop moire in people pics?

Well, some people wear clothes. As to your first question, it isn't a matter of not wanting more detail, but not wanting false detail. When the IIs was announced I was ready to shell out for it, because I am mainly a nature and landscape shooter. But I've seen enough sample photos and read enough informed discussion to have changed my mind; my K-5 (original version) is on order. YMMV.

[RonHendriks1966]

I think that the K-30 will surprise you how much better it already is then your m4/3th in image quality. If it's a hobby you might even just buy the K-30 and spend some off the money on a good lens.

[adi3000]

This user have hundreds images with K5IIs and in all what I check I see only 2 with small amount of moire that can be easily taken out with LR.
Flickr: akahigeg's Photostream

My opinion is that K5iis cannot produce more moire then K100D or K-x. If you liked K100D or K-x (regarding image) you will like K5iis more.

[normhead]

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.

[Sandy Hancock]

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....

[baro-nite]

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.

And the only resolution advantages of the IIs over the other K-5 variants won't be noticeable except in those same circumstances. The IIs offers the potential for a small but significant gain in resolution, if the right lenses, camera settings, and shooting conditions are used, and if the result is viewed at relatively high magnification, whether print or screen. On the other hand it offers some (I don't know how much) increased potential for difficult to deal with moire when shooting and viewing particular subjects (e.g. fabrics) under similarly precise conditions. This will be a good tradeoff for some people and not for others. And for still others (probably most hobbyists) it doesn't really matter either way, because their technique rarely pushes the limits of the sensor. In which case one might as well buy the original K-5 (unless one needs the improved low-light AF performance of the II or IIs) or a K-30, and save money.

[normhead]

On the other hand it offers some (I don't know how much) increased potential for difficult to deal with moire when shooting and viewing particular subjects (e.g. fabrics) under similarly precise conditions. This will be a good tradeoff for some people and not for others.

That depends entirely on what frequency moire rears it's ugly head. At the moment, as I said, no one has produced an example of a shot that's been so ruined by moire they couldn't use it. We know the problem exists in a theoretical sense, but the parameters are yet to be determined. it could be that the problems cause by moire will be insignificant to any shooter. I'm not willing to go on the assumption that it is until it's proven. I'm waiting to find out what someone's shutter count is when they have their first moire disaster. I don't think it would be fair to suggest it's going to happen, until it actually happens. It's also quite possible that the moire will be so hard to notice it actually doesn't affect the average shooter at all.

[gaweidert]

kpevav,

Like you I have owned SLR cameras for over 40 years. I have had a K5 since March. Quite a learning curve to it as digital is a whole new way to look at the world. It has it's limitations just like any film, but different enough that you just have to take some shots and do some harsh critique of the failures. And then they got these new fancy terms like bokeh????????????

My first pictures with the K5 were lacking. Too easy to just bang away without putting any thought into the shot. As I was taking up photography again after about a 10 year layoff I had to relearn a few basic things. Slowing down was the more important. I would get the battery grip as it gives you a lot better hold onto the camera. Mine always stays on the camera.

In the olden days, new films made all cameras better no matter how old they were. In today's world it's the cameras with the short shelf life and not the film. On the plus side, you can use lower quality lenses and still get acceptable digital results. I wish we could get films like Kodachrome, but it ain't gonna happen so, for better or worse, digital is the wave of the future.

The only lenses I have used with my camera is the manual focus lenses that i have been using for as long as 40 years. I have never used an auto focus lens except on point and shoot cameras. This takes some testing too as focus confirmation may need some tweaking and the supplied viewing screen is not all that good for manual focus. I replaced mine with one with a porro prism setup.

Because of the photography I mainly do, I am seriously considering getting a KIIs. The lower price is not making the decision any easier either.

Good luck.

READ THE MANUAL it is actually pretty good.

[JohnBee]

well, some people wear clothes...

lol