[westmill]

Heres the rub lol Yes, of course it will get moire and more so than a camera that uses an AA filter. Thats what the AA filter is for lol. Except here is the other rub. The materials that produce moire you will also see with a lot of cameras that have weak AA filters. I use a Fuji EX1 which also has no AA filter. I have shot a few thousand pics so far and have seen moire once in a single shot. It shows badly on a mans jacket from a wedding I shot with it. Fuji uses a different type of bayer that seems to work really well and it produces outstanding pics. It also produces a big problem for RAW files though. Wedding and fashion photographers may want to think twice, but the fact is, even then it is rare enough not to be a huge problem. The guy wearing the jacket was in a couple of other pics too and it had no moire. So even that was a case of just being at the wrong angle or light or watever. In my opinion it does not happen enough to become anything of a huge problem. What I would say though, is that I much prefer the look of the K5 images to the K5s images. I would opt for a K5 2 rather than the K5s but and its a big BUT... not because of moire. No matter what anyone says about K5, its sensor is simply superb.

[Alizarine]

posted this on another thread:


This is a 100% crop, but even zoomed out, the moire is obvious. Good thing I shot it in RAW; there's still a big chance of correcting it...

...but given the number of shots I took at this particular area... I'm going to have to render overtime tonight

[westmill]

I saw this lol. I have just tried find my example. To say mine showed it more clearly is an understatement I fear I may have deleted it unfortunatley. Yours is extremly mild case. The moire I saw in my pic ruined the shot and was not usable. There was no need to blow it up to see it. It stood out like a sore thumb

[Alizarine]

It can still be seen in the whole photo... here's the link to the downsized sample:

http://s2.postimage.org/ypiq3drvd/RAJR1741.jpg

and knowing it's going to be printed by the clients on a large banner for the success of the event, I'd have to PP all the shots (at least, those in this area - everywhere else no moire can be seen )

[Elliot]

What I would say though, is that I much prefer the look of the K5 images to the K5s images. I would opt for a K5 2 rather than the K5s but and its a big BUT... not because of moire.

Interesting, what do you prefer about the K5II over the K-5IIs?

[Digitalis]

The only things dangerous about the K5IIs are:

1) This camera will reveal flaws in any lens, no matter how minor they are - thankfully a majority of them are correctable either in-camera or in post.

2) Any focusing errors made by the AF or manual focus are blindingly obvious, getting a Lens AF calibration target is essential for professional work. (I admit to being rather neurotic about this)

[Anvh]

The only things dangerous about the K5IIs are:

1) This camera will reveal flaws in any lens, no matter how minor they are - thankfully a majority of them are correctable either in-camera or in post.

2) Any focusing errors made by the AF or manual focus are blindingly obvious, getting a Lens AF calibration target is essential for professional work. (I admit to being rather neurotic about this)

Isn't number 2 true for all cameras?

As for revealing flaws, are there any proofs out already that shows how it outresolve the nomral versions?

Last thing that i saw where the developed RAW photos of each version and you had to look for the moire to see which one was which...

[Digitalis]

Isn't number 2 true for all cameras?

yes, however with no Bayer AA filter the area of focus is rendered with greater accutance, details that would require sharpening to be visible stand out considerably with the Bayer AA filter gone because of this lenses faster than f/2 focusing is critical

As for revealing flaws, are there any proofs out already that shows how it outresolve the nomral versions? Last thing that i saw where the developed RAW photos of each version and you had to look for the moire to see which one was which...

There is enough proof out there, I myself have worked with many high end cameras that do not have bayer AA filters in them and they always resolve more than cameras that do have Bayer AA filters in them. And just because a camera doesn't have a Bayer AA filter doesn't mean there is going to be moire in every shot, in the K5IIs - moire can appear but IMO it is only a minor concern for everyday outdoor photography, Besides I know several techniques on how to reduce the impact of moire in post processing.

.

[Anvh]

There is no "however".
There is no logic in your reasoning why AA filterless camera need to focus more accurate.
You might need to focus more accurate to make the differnce of not having an AA filter count however, if that is what you mean?
But still focus is evenly critical with both.


I'm merely talking about the K5 mkII versions now.
This is the thread i'm talking about
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/207505-pentax-k-5-iis-vs-k-5-ii-take-two.html

I just can not see any differnce in details you're saying should be there.
Since you have had many AA filterless camera you must have an eye for it so show me the details i'm missing.
Could it be that the AA of the normal version is weak anough not to effect the details in any visiual way for this size of pixels?

As for moire i'm mostly shoot portraits so i even get moire with normal cameras, would be great if you can give me some pointers. I'm able to remove it with the standard tools but it almost always leave traces...

[Alizarine]

I can only compare between my K-x and K-5 IIs with the FA77 Limited - for portraits, the most obvious differences in resolution come when viewing very fine parts like the hair, and irises in the eye. It gets in the way sometimes though, that added resolution... adds pp work too.

The difference isn't very visible until you zoom in to past 50% or print big sizes. The max I've done is 8x10 but at least I can view the K-5 IIs details with a closer look and still see fine details.

[LFLee]

The moire is rarely seen in most photos, and the sharpness gained, on the other hand, is pretty obvious. For me, I have decided that I will get "s" version camera in the future (Nikon D800E if Pentax don't have a FF down the road). I have taken some photos in this thread with K5IIs+FA*85, The only problem I notice is the PF from the 85mm.




Other pics are here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/210517-people-portrait-winter-series.html

Really, I think none of the "s" owner regret they choose the "s" version. When Pentax said they are working on in-camera processing to automatically remove moire in future product, you know this is how Pentax will move forward - with "s" version! The advantage is much much more than the disadvantage.

Lee

[Digitalis]

Superlative work there Lee, if it is any consolation the FA77mm f/1.8 Limited has the same PF problem as the FA*85mm f/1.4 - though I'm not really sure which lens is worse at producing it.

Since you have had many AA filterless camera you must have an eye for it so show me the details i'm missing.

As for K5II Vs K5IIs as much as I hate to say this: if you cannot see a difference to then it doesn't matter, for me I can see the difference between them and it is important to me. Understand that no everyone judges Image quality the same way, if anything I'm very unforgiving of faults. And I always saw the Bayer AA filter as just one more piece of baggage digital photography to shrug off. Just like the mid to late 90's when inkjet prints had to shrug off the name "giclee" art dealers used to hide the stigma of being of inferior quality compared to hand made cibachrome and silver halide prints because of their digital origins.

As for moire i'm mostly shoot portraits so i even get moire with normal cameras

I have experienced the same thing, and I'm still in favour cameras without Bayer AA filters. There are many techniques for eliminating moire,I personally use techniques that eliminate it at the capture phase rather than addressing the issue in post processing. Because I would rather be out taking photos than mucking about on my computer trying to salvage something that would never work as a 16X20 print - and incidentally that is a mid sized print for me. I only use 8X10(or 8x12) prints for the purpose of soft proofing - and for small folios of my work.

[Anvh]

Digitalis, you say there is a differnce in detail right, please point me out to me then.
Its not that hard to point them out right since you're seeing them.


I'm curious how you prevent it at the capture stage.
2 weeks ago we shot in a day 400 photos of 100 different outfits and some outfits where a nightmare with moire.

[Anvh]

I can only compare between my K-x and K-5 IIs with the FA77 Limited - for portraits, the most obvious differences in resolution come when viewing very fine parts like the hair, and irises in the eye. It gets in the way sometimes though, that added resolution... adds pp work too.

The difference isn't very visible until you zoom in to past 50% or print big sizes. The max I've done is 8x10 but at least I can view the K-5 IIs details with a closer look and still see fine details.

You ar probably looking at the first stage of the photos, but what if they have undergone some processing.
here are the two vrsion side by side, and fully processed.
Can you point me out which details are mising with the normal version?
www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/207505-pentax-k-5-iis-vs-k-5-ii-take-two.html

The moire is rarely seen in most photos, and the sharpness gained, on the other hand, is pretty obvious. For me, I have decided that I will get "s" version camera in the future (Nikon D800E if Pentax don't have a FF down the road). I have taken some photos in this thread with K5IIs+FA*85, The only problem I notice is the PF from the 85mm.

Really, I think none of the "s" owner regret they choose the "s" version. When Pentax said they are working on in-camera processing to automatically remove moire in future product, you know this is how Pentax will move forward - with "s" version! The advantage is much much more than the disadvantage.

Lee

I'm frequently getting moire with the K5, i doubt you're saying that the S version has less problems?

Instead of software, simply higher count pixel will also reduce it and if pixels increase the differnce between having AA filter or not is also decreasing. It's nice that Pentax did 2 versions but i think it will be for the last time.

[Alizarine]

When Pentax said they are working on in-camera processing to automatically remove moire in future product, you know this is how Pentax will move forward - with "s" version! The advantage is much much more than the disadvantage.

Hope they also give a firmware update with that for the K-5 IIs in the future (since by then it's an old cam, lol)

You ar probably looking at the first stage of the photos, but what if they have undergone some processing. here are the two vrsion side by side, and fully processed. Can you point me out which details are mising with the normal version?

Of course I look at them at the first stage - SOOC (raw not jpeg). Why is that? Because I'd like to see good results without more PP... if it can look real sharp at first glance, I'm a happy boy