[Ash]

Good going, frank. Join the club.
The IIs is definitely the way to go. So far, no moire, and only very sharp images from all the great Pentax lenses we love and enjoy.
And it too will be my last APS-C purchase.

[Allison]

I joined the iis club and it will be here tomorrow. Since I am keeping the k5, I figure this is a way to shoot with the same, yet different camera at the same time.

[ManuH]

I went with the K-5 II. I don't think the IIs is the answer to more resolution, give me 24mp any day instead of a 16mp without AA. The moiré issue is real and can be seen at normal size while the small improvement in accutance is only visible for big magnifications. And accutance can mostly be improved with good sharpening software.

I also find funny one of the argument that moiré is not an issue because it's only visible on small details at 100%. But if you don't care for small details at 100% why did you went for the AA-less in the first place?

[daveej]

K-5 II. Getting a K-5 II image as sharp as a K-5 IIs is simple, getting a K-5 IIs image as moire artifact free as a K-5 II, not so simple. Now if the K-5 IIs had a different sensor...

[Class A]

I also find funny one of the argument that moiré is not an issue because it's only visible on small details at 100%. But if you don't care for small details at 100% why did you went for the AA-less in the first place?

True and add to this that moiré can destroy large areas in a photograph (e.g., certain fabrics), so can be seen without pixel-peeping.

The eye does not resolve like a camera does and so moiré will always be a surprise (and will always be hard to provoke when you want to).

I've written a piece about what a Bayer-AA-filter is and why it makes sense for most people to shoot with a complete imaging system, rather than one with a missing part.

[Chris Mak]

True and add to this that moiré can destroy large areas in a photograph (e.g., certain fabrics), so can be seen without pixel-peeping.

Theoretically moiré can indeed "destroy" parts of an image, but this happens seldom, and when it happens, using the moiré removal tool on a layer easily takes care of this. I've shot about 5000 images now on the K5IIs, and have seen real moiré in only one or two images. Color artifacts at higher iso's are another story, but standard chroma noise removal also removes these artifacts 99% of the time.

The eye does not resolve like a camera does and so moiré will always be a surprise (and will always be hard to provoke when you want to).

True, but mostly it comes as a surprise simply because it véry rarely comes to begin with...

I've written a piece about what a Bayer-AA-filter is and why it makes sense for most people to shoot with a complete imaging system, rather than one with a missing part.

There's two camps (and anything in-between) regarding moiré and AA-filters (see a.o. Leica, Ricoh), but I had the K5, and now have the K5IIs (with high quality primes), and I enjoy the K5IIs images a fair bit more than the images from my former K5, so what to say? Photography is there to enjoy after all, not an exact science where mostly theoretical impurities are a valid basis to rule out a camera...

regards
Chris

[ManuH]

Photography is there to enjoy after all, not an exact science where mostly theoretical impurities are a valid basis to rule out a camera...

That's very true and to each his own. The important point is to understand what you're really choosing. The information in the thread linked by Class A is enough to understand the differences and make an enlightened choice.

[halfspin]

The information about 2 out of 5000 images producing moire is should be far more enlightening than theoretical reasons that don't translate to real world shooting.

[normhead]

The information about 2 out of 5000 images producing moire is should be far more enlightening than theoretical reasons that don't translate to real world shooting.

Exactly, when I take 5000 images to get one I really like, I have to wonder, what are the odds that the image I like will be the one with moire... (one in 12,500,000). I like my odds. To me the effect of false colour, which seems to be a lot more prevalent is the more relevant issue, and I've see examples of false colour in many test charts and images, even on the test shots released by Pentax.

[Michaelina2]

Exactly, when I take 5000 images to get one I really like, I have to wonder, what are the odds that the image I like will be the one with moire... (one in 12,500,000). I like my odds. To me the effect of false colour, which seems to be a lot more prevalent is the more relevant issue, and I've see examples of false colour in many test charts and images, even on the test shots released by Pentax.

Pssst... All is not lost. You can always redefine that moire, or false color image in post to a delicious black and white, then be 'good to go.' Eh?

Cheers...

[normhead]

Pssst... All is not lost. You can always redefine that moire, or false color image in post to a delicious black and white, then be 'good to go.' Eh?

Cheers...

That depends on how you define black and white, you could define it as no colour, but you could also define it as the worst case of false colour you've ever seen.

Cheers

[Class A]

The information about 2 out of 5000 images producing moire is should be far more enlightening than theoretical reasons that don't translate to real world shooting.

For people that cannot or do not want to take images that are sharp at the pixel level, a K-5 IIs is just fine.

If blur is provided by camera shake, defocus, etc. then there is no need for a Bayer-AA-filter.

[jbinpg]

You lost me here. Or did you mean to write K5 II?

[Class A]

I meant the K-5 IIs, just as I wrote it.

If there is a high level of detail in the scene and the capture technique is excellent, the K-5 IIs will produce false colour artefacts, including moiré. Period.

One can avoid this by choosing low detail scenes or less than optimal capture technique. The fact that many shooters do not appear to have issues with the K-5 IIs just prooves that they are dealing with one of the above, not that the potential for issues is just "theoretical". Again, fine by me.

[ManuH]

The information about 2 out of 5000 images producing moire is should be far more enlightening than theoretical reasons that don't translate to real world shooting.

2 in 5000? I'm not so sure, I've seen the samples at dpreview.com, for example the hairs are ugly on the IIs because of the staircase effect. For a portraitist I'd guess the ratio would be much more than 2 in 5000.

It reminds me LCD screens and why Cleartype was invented. Interestingly when I started to install it on a lot of computers I got 2 different reactions. Some people were loving the smoothness, others were complaining about the fuzziness. Same with AA filters, some prefer the smoothness of them, others prefer the high acutance if a bit harsh look of the AA-less filters.

Also I liked John Bee's conclusion in the other forum. Those who shoot Jpeg and want to spend minimal time post-processing will prefer the IIs, and those who shoot in raw and always post-process will probably be better off with the II as they will get 90% of the sharpness but will preserve the tonality.