Is the K-5 IIs dangerous...

qleak · 01-25-2013, 01:26 AM

I'm curious has anyone given any thought to putting a diffuser lens filter on one of these cameras in situations (like fashion photography) where moire is likely to raise it's ugly head and just take the drop in sharpness?

mosaic engineering also claims to have a non blurring anti aliasing lens filter that you can just screw on to your lens. Though it doesn't show up anywhere on their products page or for sale anywhere online so I'm sceptical to say the least.

But if an on lens filter is an option wouldn't this be a far more flexible solution than an on sensor AA filter?

Best,

-Q

Alizarine · 01-25-2013, 03:14 AM

I'd rather go without the AA altogether, sensor or lens based, and just avoid the situations or lighting that may provoke moire. If all else fails, there's still post-processing.

**Digitalis** · 01-25-2013, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Alizarine

'd rather go without the AA altogether, sensor or lens based, and just avoid the situations or lighting that may provoke moire

frequently us commercial photographers do not have much of a choice - with most of my cameras that have no Bayer AA Filter I stop the lens down to f/13~f/16 - and let Diffraction itself become the AA filter - because a shot with a camera without a filter at f/16 is still going to be sharper than a shot from a camera that already has a Bayer AA filter in it. Another trick I use is to simply take a few steps closer/further away from my subject and crop in afterwards, sometimes even holding the camera at a slight angle can reduce Moire - I learned that trick years ago from a television crew.

westmill · 01-27-2013, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by kpevav

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

It just seems every camera gives a certain look or feel. I only go by the resultant image. There is something about the pics I just do not like from the 2s.
I can not even say what it is. It certainly holds a lot of detail but I just do not like the images. I love the images from the K5 though.

Everyone has different taste though.

Anvh · 01-29-2013, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

frequently us commercial photographers do not have much of a choice - with most of my cameras that have no Bayer AA Filter I stop the lens down to f/13~f/16 - and let Diffraction itself become the AA filter - because a shot with a camera without a filter at f/16 is still going to be sharper than a shot from a camera that already has a Bayer AA filter in it. Another trick I use is to simply take a few steps closer/further away from my subject and crop in afterwards, sometimes even holding the camera at a slight angle can reduce Moire - I learned that trick years ago from a television crew.

But in the studio that is not always an option and with clothing changing the angle or taking a step forward or backward only moves the problem to a different part 9/10 times.

As for not shooting in these conditions... well i can hardly give up shooting clothing if that's a living

**Digitalis** · 01-29-2013, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

But in the studio that is not always an option and with clothing changing the angle or taking a step forward or backward only moves the problem to a different part 9/10 times.

sometimes it does work sometimes it doesn't I. BTW how big is the studio you are working in?

Anvh · 01-29-2013, 06:15 AM

Big but with lookbook you can not move too much because you're changing perspective.

Anvh · 01-29-2013, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Alizarine

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

Everyone has different needs.
My photos will always be processed and input sharpening is only a very small part of that, that is even dealt with automatically so it's not a major concern to sharpen my images more.
The question remains though, how much more detail is there really in the end image?

The posts that i see about that say there is very little between them but there is increase in moire for the S version.
If that is the case then removing moire is more time consuming because that needs to be done manually while sharpening is done automatically.

So i'm curious to hear from people that actually do some processing, if there is a real gain in detail between for example the normal K5 and the mkIIs.

Alizarine · 01-29-2013, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

if there is a real gain in detail between for example the normal K5 and the mkIIs.

Very few people would have probably upgraded from the K-5 to the K-5 IIs... Had I the K-5 Classic before, I doubt SAFOX X alone will make me consider the upgrade. But since i only had the K-x...

**jbinpg** · 01-29-2013, 11:18 PM

Anvh - You can stop wondering. I received my IIs today. Comparison shots between my K-5 of the same subject with the same lens shows a noticeable increase in resolution with the s version when processed identically. Try one out yourself if you are able.

Jack

Alizarine · 01-30-2013, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by jbinpg

Anvh - You can stop wondering. I received my IIs today. Comparison shots between my K-5 of the same subject with the same lens shows a noticeable increase in resolution with the s version when processed identically. Try one out yourself if you are able.

If you can do post a sample please do so sir. It will be much appreciated (since I don't have a K-5 classic)!

**jbinpg** · 01-30-2013, 12:52 AM - **1 Like**

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

Anvh · 01-30-2013, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by jbinpg

Anvh - You can stop wondering. I received my IIs today. Comparison shots between my K-5 of the same subject with the same lens shows a noticeable increase in resolution with the s version when processed identically. Try one out yourself if you are able.

Jack

Thank you Jack but you're making an error.

Since the S version does not have an AA filter so the processing must be different, so if you're processing them the same way it's actually a sign you didn't process your K5 photo's well.

That's what i meant with comparing the 2 with a propper processing rather then indentical processing

The input sharpening must be different.

As for the photos you're showing, can you point out the details the K5 did not capture?
Seems to me it captured all the hair, stripes in the iris and the skin.

**Digitalis** · 01-30-2013, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

As for the photos you're showing, can you point out the details the K5 did not capture?

you mean the differences aren't plain enough to see? sure the quality of light appears to be different between the two images - the degree of specularity on the K5IIs shot is different from the K5, not to mention the WB setting. But there are extremely fine details there that the K5IIs is capturing that are difficult to see in the K5 image.

Anvh · 01-30-2013, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

But there are extremely fine details there that the K5IIs is capturing that are difficult to see in the K5 image.

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.

I would love to see a huge difference between the two in levels of details captured but that doesnt seem to be the case, sadly.
This only makes chosing harder....
Maybe i'll just get the 645D....

01-30-2013, 12:52 AM - 1 Like	#117
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	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 Attached Images

01-30-2013, 04:42 AM	#118
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by jbinpg Anvh - You can stop wondering. I received my IIs today. Comparison shots between my K-5 of the same subject with the same lens shows a noticeable increase in resolution with the s version when processed identically. Try one out yourself if you are able. Jack Thank you Jack but you're making an error. Since the S version does not have an AA filter so the processing must be different, so if you're processing them the same way it's actually a sign you didn't process your K5 photo's well. That's what i meant with comparing the 2 with a propper processing rather then indentical processing The input sharpening must be different. As for the photos you're showing, can you point out the details the K5 did not capture? Seems to me it captured all the hair, stripes in the iris and the skin. Last edited by Anvh; 01-30-2013 at 04:47 AM.

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 & K-5 II	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 & K-5 II	11	09-28-2012 08:17 AM

01-25-2013, 01:26 AM	#106
qleak Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 37	I'm curious has anyone given any thought to putting a diffuser lens filter on one of these cameras in situations (like fashion photography) where moire is likely to raise it's ugly head and just take the drop in sharpness? mosaic engineering also claims to have a non blurring anti aliasing lens filter that you can just screw on to your lens. Though it doesn't show up anywhere on their products page or for sale anywhere online so I'm sceptical to say the least. But if an on lens filter is an option wouldn't this be a far more flexible solution than an on sensor AA filter? Best, -Q

01-25-2013, 03:14 AM	#107
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	I'd rather go without the AA altogether, sensor or lens based, and just avoid the situations or lighting that may provoke moire. If all else fails, there's still post-processing.

01-25-2013, 03:47 AM	#108
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Alizarine 'd rather go without the AA altogether, sensor or lens based, and just avoid the situations or lighting that may provoke moire frequently us commercial photographers do not have much of a choice - with most of my cameras that have no Bayer AA Filter I stop the lens down to f/13~f/16 - and let Diffraction itself become the AA filter - because a shot with a camera without a filter at f/16 is still going to be sharper than a shot from a camera that already has a Bayer AA filter in it. Another trick I use is to simply take a few steps closer/further away from my subject and crop in afterwards, sometimes even holding the camera at a slight angle can reduce Moire - I learned that trick years ago from a television crew.

01-27-2013, 12:50 PM	#109
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by kpevav Interesting, what do you prefer about the K5II over the K-5IIs? It just seems every camera gives a certain look or feel. I only go by the resultant image. There is something about the pics I just do not like from the 2s. I can not even say what it is. It certainly holds a lot of detail but I just do not like the images. I love the images from the K5 though. Everyone has different taste though.

01-29-2013, 05:11 AM	#110
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Digitalis frequently us commercial photographers do not have much of a choice - with most of my cameras that have no Bayer AA Filter I stop the lens down to f/13~f/16 - and let Diffraction itself become the AA filter - because a shot with a camera without a filter at f/16 is still going to be sharper than a shot from a camera that already has a Bayer AA filter in it. Another trick I use is to simply take a few steps closer/further away from my subject and crop in afterwards, sometimes even holding the camera at a slight angle can reduce Moire - I learned that trick years ago from a television crew. But in the studio that is not always an option and with clothing changing the angle or taking a step forward or backward only moves the problem to a different part 9/10 times. As for not shooting in these conditions... well i can hardly give up shooting clothing if that's a living

01-29-2013, 05:40 AM	#111
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Anvh But in the studio that is not always an option and with clothing changing the angle or taking a step forward or backward only moves the problem to a different part 9/10 times. sometimes it does work sometimes it doesn't I. BTW how big is the studio you are working in?

01-29-2013, 06:15 AM	#112
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Big but with lookbook you can not move too much because you're changing perspective.

01-29-2013, 08:22 AM	#113
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Alizarine 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 Everyone has different needs. My photos will always be processed and input sharpening is only a very small part of that, that is even dealt with automatically so it's not a major concern to sharpen my images more. The question remains though, how much more detail is there really in the end image? The posts that i see about that say there is very little between them but there is increase in moire for the S version. If that is the case then removing moire is more time consuming because that needs to be done manually while sharpening is done automatically. So i'm curious to hear from people that actually do some processing, if there is a real gain in detail between for example the normal K5 and the mkIIs.

01-29-2013, 07:47 PM	#114
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Anvh if there is a real gain in detail between for example the normal K5 and the mkIIs. Very few people would have probably upgraded from the K-5 to the K-5 IIs... Had I the K-5 Classic before, I doubt SAFOX X alone will make me consider the upgrade. But since i only had the K-x...

01-29-2013, 11:18 PM	#115
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	Anvh - You can stop wondering. I received my IIs today. Comparison shots between my K-5 of the same subject with the same lens shows a noticeable increase in resolution with the s version when processed identically. Try one out yourself if you are able. Jack

01-30-2013, 12:27 AM	#116
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by jbinpg Anvh - You can stop wondering. I received my IIs today. Comparison shots between my K-5 of the same subject with the same lens shows a noticeable increase in resolution with the s version when processed identically. Try one out yourself if you are able. If you can do post a sample please do so sir. It will be much appreciated (since I don't have a K-5 classic)!

01-30-2013, 06:55 AM	#119
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Anvh As for the photos you're showing, can you point out the details the K5 did not capture? you mean the differences aren't plain enough to see? sure the quality of light appears to be different between the two images - the degree of specularity on the K5IIs shot is different from the K5, not to mention the WB setting. But there are extremely fine details there that the K5IIs is capturing that are difficult to see in the K5 image.

01-30-2013, 07:32 AM	#120
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Digitalis But there are extremely fine details there that the K5IIs is capturing that are difficult to see in the K5 image. 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. I would love to see a huge difference between the two in levels of details captured but that doesnt seem to be the case, sadly. This only makes chosing harder.... Maybe i'll just get the 645D....