[frank]

Hi Guys,

We've seen enough discussion and comparison between these two cameras, and many of us already know the pros and cons of removing the AA filter. I'd like to see how many guys are really concerned about lacking of AA filter in a K-5 camera.

Let's assume the prices are the same for these two cameras: K-5II and K-5IIs, so we'd remove the price factor, and purely focus on the effect of AA vs non-AA filter.

You can only choose one from the two options, and you are welcome to explain the reasons why you choose that option, but I guess a poll would be good enough.

Would be very appreciated if we don't discuss or argue w/ the others here (there are plenty of discussion threads already). Just explain why you choose K-5II or K-5IIs if you like to.

Thanks and cheers!

Frank

---

Last edited by frank; 11-27-2012 at 01:43 AM.

[frank]

I'd go w/ the K-5II.

One reason is that I'm pretty happy w/ the results from K-5 classic, the other is that I'm pretty lousy in post processing photos, don't really know how to remove moire if it's in a photo. And also, since the cost is the same, I'd rather have more (w/ the AA filter) instead of less

Why they charge more for a camera w/o AA filter than a camera w/ AA filter is beyond me.

[Adam]

The II for me. I don't do moire either.

I will be posting an article on how to remove moire in post, though- it's pretty easy with photoshop

[pinholecam]

K5IIs.
The K5 improved to the point of perfection
And I'm convinced of that after using K5 and K30.


I'm not nik-picky over moire.
In fact,
1. It does not always occur (in fact seldom)
2. When it does, it usually does on very unimportant stuff (ventillation grilling; some far window grill so far such that the spacial pattern makes moire more likely; far roof tops; that sort of nonsense thing)
Those who like to nik-pick thru a photo looking at window grills and air-con vents to say "Ah! Moire!" need to get a life beyond their cold attics sitting in front of their PC. Get out and shoot more photos!
The potential to skip a step of sharpening and use that saved "post process mileage" for other stuff like levels adjustments, saturation, HDR, filters, local contrast adjustments, just means that the K5IIs is the definitive APS-C DSLR to date.

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 11-27-2012 at 02:01 AM.

[interested_observer]

If I were to need a new camera body, I would go with the IIs, since I mainly do 'scapes - city & land, with ambient low light.

That said, I am perfectly content with my K5 classic. I have had it for almost a year now. It does everything I need and have not been able to tax it with my mere mortal skills. Its a hobby, I don't need a FF body. If I can't figure out how to do it with a K5, then its beyond my capabilities. Just cite me as happy......

[7samurai]

Curious to see how my photography would grow or change with a K-5 IIs. I wouldn't even know how to proceed with it, which makes it that much more interesting to me.

Unfortunately, I didn't get one during the Black Friday deals...maybe next time.

[Racerdew]

Just bought the IIs yesterday from B&H.

racerdew

[Alizarine]

Curious about the IIs, but after my encounters with moire with the lowly K-x, am feeling a little more inclined to get the plain II-version instead. Although it can be removed in post, it's not like I have all the time in the world to do that in batches of 100+,

If I had more money to burn on traveling I'll bet on the IIs. But as of now that I have lotsa bills to pay and retirement benefits still very far, it'll be the II.

[Heie]

Hey Frank,

This is interesting - I'm intrigued by the results of this poll as well.

I posted my internal struggle in my latest deployment update thread, but I'll paste it here as well.

Which one? The II or IIs? The reason I was leaning away from the IIs was because of the moire. See, the issue is that I'm red-green colorblind, and seeing very faint shades/tints of colors is damn near impossible for me. I just can't do it. To get a bit of context of what I mean - visit here for a colorblind test and see how many you can see. The only one I could see was the demonstration one that says 16. That's it. I have been meaning to make a separate post about this a while ago to see how others have coped with this, because one of the most excruciatingly painful things for me to do is correct white balance. I usually get it really really close, but it is very difficult. Anyway, enough about that - I can see the moire patterns in the test shots - my concern was would I notice the moire on my own without others pointing it out. But then there were many reports that it was difficult to purposefully bring it out, and some people have failed to do so despite trying very hard. So assuming I didn't shoot any cacti like Adam does, I figured the risk was low. And then it occurred to me - in the event I need to shoot in heavily moire prone situations, I have the K-30.

I know some will ask why not use the K-30 as my primary and since I still have a K-7 use that as my backup. I shoot in very dim light and call me a snob, but I can't work with the K-7 at high ISO - I really, really feel uncomfortable using it because grain is so prevalent so early. And the K-30, while it is a great camera, it isn't as robust and durable as the K-5/II/IIs due to the full magnesium alloy chasis of the K-5 series, which I really do need because of how I often shoot. Also, the lack of an ISO button (outside the AF control buttons) I find very inhibiting because I manipulate ISO so often. Yes a pet peeve, but I had gotten used to the K-5 and find the ergonomics PERFECT. So by now it's pretty obvious that I went with the K-5 IIs, and the K-30 will be my back-up/secondary, and the K-7 will be offered up for sale upon return from Afghanistan.

Also, one of the other reasons to go with the K-5IIs was I knew it would force myself to be a better photographer - I would have to actively pay attention to moire-causing subjects/situations, and actively mitigate the onset of the phenomenon. In the short term I am sure it will ruin many photographs, but I am confident it will pay off in the long-term because it will hone my eye and make it more sensitive to detecting what my lens and sensor see and thus further bridging the gap between what I see in my mind and what the camera sees. Yes that is making things harder for myself, but then that's why I do training runs and PT sessions in a gas mask

Thanks again for starting this and I'm curious as to others' thought process between the two excellent choices.

-Heie

[Noam]

I have just ordered a II. For me, the risk and hassle of eliminating moire are not worth the extra resolution gain, which is significant mostly with very large enlargements in critical applications.
BTW, moire can appear with any camera (just witnessed yesterday with my K-7 and a mosquito net on my window). for me, the risk is just too big with the IIs. I don't want another worry on my mind..

[DSims]

I got the K-5 IIs in the first shipment, and I still can't decide whether it's better overall than the K-5.

Unquestionably, it's better in:

1) Low light noise
2) 1 stop faster SR
3) Low light focusing
4) Avoiding focus hunting
5) Pixel-level detail

While 3) and 4) should be true of the K-5 II also, the others probably aren't. Even 2) may be better in the IIs, although I've not seen proof of this yet.


The questions for me are:

A) Do I want that pixel level detail most of the time? I chose the FA77 over the DA70 because I thought it rendered more beautiful images, even if with a little less sharpness or detail. The same seems to be true of the K-5 over the IIs.

B) The colors are different in the IIs, and I'm not so sure I like the overall results as much as from the K-5, in most cases.

However, moire is not the issue for me.

[janneman]

If I had all the money to spare I wishes I had I'd get both. Partly because in a way the compliment each other but also partly (and by far the bigger part, let's say 99% or so) becaus I am very curious about hw they compare.

But, sometimes unfortunately, there is also a small part of me that is smart. Currently I have two K-5. Now, If I sell both of them I might consider getting both K-5II and IIs but aas, one of them is so much used, even shows some wear and tear which make it look cool (black paint worn down on the metal parts so you can actually see the plain metal) and I just love the feel of that one. For some weird reason I don't like the other K-5 as much.

Anyways, still no sign of K-5IIs in our small country. Still waiting to see what prices do (all the sites where you can "pre-order"still list the old prices, whereas the K-5II already is cheaper). If the same low price, K-5IIs. If not the same (or more or less the same), I will wait for prices to drop. Not sure about new things in near future, if we knew that things might change.

[halfspin]

I got the IIs yesterday for CHEAPER than the II. But even if the IIs was at its current price I'd buy it because I want as much sharpness is as humanly possible (for the money). I want to print at least one acceptable landscape shot @ 8 feet wide (2 row pano). The small risk of moire in other shots is not an issue. No risk, no rewards. The only reason not to get the IIs is fear.

[SyncGuy]

Well, I'll have to choose the K5-iiS over the other. Why? Because i believe in flexibility. Having the option and flexibility is more important to me.
This applies because i believe moire is very hard to produce, unless forcibly and purposely. Therefore, having it sharper is better. Like stated around here, you can unsharpen a sharp image but you can't sharpen an unsharp image equally...

[RonHendriks1966]

Well I would like one of each, but aslong as my K-5 Silver still works I just order a K-5 II to start with.