Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-02-2012, 08:19 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 15
K-5 ii vs K-5 iis comparison with higher sharpness in K-5 ii

Hello
I have seen pictures of "out of box" camera for both K-5 ii and K-5 iis and K-5 iis comes out ahead except in the case of dense repeating pattern which is to be expected.

Well has anyone really compared the two camers with different settings on both the cameras? Specifically I am interested in seeing pictures under following conditions
1. Several levels of increased sharpness in K-5 ii only vs "out of box" sharpness setting in K-5 iis.
2. Using exceptional fixed focal length lense
3. Great exposure:
3.A) morning time or evening time photos
3.B) Use of tripod
3.C) Low ISO like around 200
3.D) Optimally exposed
If one is able to get equivalent sharpness with K-5 ii under above conditions with higher sharpness settings then I would rather have K-5 ii than K-5 iis given that it (K-5 ii) is cheaper and would be better in repeating dense pattern pictures.

I would greatly appreciate if anyone can post pictures as per above criteria. Thank you

12-02-2012, 08:34 AM   #2
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
Yes, the k-5II can match the k-5IIs if you don't increase the IIs's sharpness.

But... why?
12-02-2012, 08:45 AM   #3
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 15
Original Poster
JinDesu
Please read my post carefully. The answer to your question is there.
Again I am not asking to increase Penax K-5iis sharpness. I am asking to increase the sharpness of K-5 ii while keeping the default sharpness of K-5 iis and do the comparison
12-02-2012, 08:53 AM   #4
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
Everyone! Please! It's very, very simple. If the iis has a higher native resolution than the ii out of the box, then it has higher resolution . . . PERIOD!!! I really don't know what is so hard to understand. It is, so far as I know, legal to sharpen images from both cameras.

12-02-2012, 08:56 AM   #5
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
QuoteOriginally posted by kataria0 Quote
JinDesu
Please read my post carefully. The answer to your question is there.
Again I am not asking to increase Penax K-5iis sharpness. I am asking to increase the sharpness of K-5 ii while keeping the default sharpness of K-5 iis and do the comparison
And I answered your post very carefully. It can.
12-02-2012, 08:59 AM   #6
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
Maybe an analogy is the best way to help people to understand here.

I am as good a hitter as Ichiro. We both got 5 hits off the same pitcher. Ichiro was pitched to 5 times. I was pitched to 20 times. Therefore, I am as good as Ichiro (and I don't cost as much money to hire to boot).
12-02-2012, 10:32 AM   #7
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
Everyone! Please! It's very, very simple. If the iis has a higher native resolution than the ii out of the box, then it has higher resolution . . . PERIOD!!! I really don't know what is so hard to understand. It is, so far as I know, legal to sharpen images from both cameras.
I wonder if that is actually true.
It might e true for black white subject but when we would look into coloured subjects i wander about the actual gain.

The blur of an AA filter is how much..? 1,5 pixel maybe but for every 4 pixels there is 1 red pixel so will the blur of the AA filter actual hurt the resolution of red?
12-02-2012, 10:35 AM   #8
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by kataria0 Quote
Hello
I have seen pictures of "out of box" camera for both K-5 ii and K-5 iis and K-5 iis comes out ahead except in the case of dense repeating pattern which is to be expected.

Well has anyone really compared the two camers with different settings on both the cameras? Specifically I am interested in seeing pictures under following conditions
1. Several levels of increased sharpness in K-5 ii only vs "out of box" sharpness setting in K-5 iis.
2. Using exceptional fixed focal length lense
3. Great exposure:
3.A) morning time or evening time photos
3.B) Use of tripod
3.C) Low ISO like around 200
3.D) Optimally exposed
If one is able to get equivalent sharpness with K-5 ii under above conditions with higher sharpness settings then I would rather have K-5 ii than K-5 iis given that it (K-5 ii) is cheaper and would be better in repeating dense pattern pictures.

I would greatly appreciate if anyone can post pictures as per above criteria. Thank you
If you need to ask all this then just get the normal version since it's slightly easier to post processed.
Besides that what will you output be, if it are web images and the normal print there i doubt you will see a difference in the end image.

Only time i've heard someone seeing the difference is with zoomed in photos on the web or large print where they stand in close to look at the pixels rather then the photo...

12-02-2012, 11:29 AM   #9
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,496
QuoteOriginally posted by kataria0 Quote
JinDesu
Please read my post carefully. The answer to your question is there.
Again I am not asking to increase Penax K-5iis sharpness. I am asking to increase the sharpness of K-5 ii while keeping the default sharpness of K-5 iis and do the comparison
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/205185-k-5-iis-vs-k-5-ii-can-y...ifference.html

Also, contrary to popular belief, the K-5 II can outperform the IIs when both are sharpened due to it's lack of moire patterns at the micro contrast detail level. However, the K-5 II requires a deblur adjustment whereas the K-5 IIs doesn't which may or may not appeal to everyone.

Beyond this, I don't know anyone who owns both a K-5 II and IIs to setup some controlled tests. Though I think that would be really fun to do.
12-02-2012, 11:49 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Though I think that would be really fun to do.
Since the differnces are quite small it will be quite time consuming to set up a proper test.
12-02-2012, 08:14 PM   #11
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,940
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
Everyone! Please! It's very, very simple. If the iis has a higher native resolution than the ii out of the box, then it has higher resolution . . . PERIOD!!! I really don't know what is so hard to understand. It is, so far as I know, legal to sharpen images from both cameras.
Contrary to your statement, the OP's request makes a lot of sense.

Say you take two images, one using regular metering and one using a two stop negative exposure compensation in order to protect highlights from blowing out.

When you compare the two images, do you push the second image by two stops first, or do compare a normally exposed image with one that is two stops underexposed? Your statement suggests the latter.

The Bayer-AA-filter in front of the sensor blurs the image slightly in order to avoid colour artefacts. It is valid and recommended to undo that blur by a bit of capture sharpening (deconvolution sharpening would be ideal, but regular sharpening methods work as well).

A K-5 IIs image, on the other hand, did not receive a pre-blur that needs to be undone.

Last edited by Class A; 12-05-2012 at 04:39 AM.
12-02-2012, 10:24 PM   #12
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Contrary to your statement, the OP's request makes a lot of sense.

Say you take two images, one using regular metering and one using a two stop negative exposure compensation in order to protect highlights from blowing out.

When you compare the two images, do you push the second image by two stops first, or do compare a normally exposed image with one that is two stops underexposed? Your statement suggests the latter.

The Bayer-AA-filter in front of the sensor blurs the image slightly in order to avoid colour artefacts. It is valid and recommend to undo that blur by a bit of capture sharpening (deconvolution sharpening would be ideal, but regular sharpening methods work as well).

A K-5 IIs image, on the other hand, did not receive a pre-blur that needs to be undone.
But you've changed the game and act as if it should still be played on the same field. Your example is fundamentally different. It differs in that you're talking exposure where there is (generally) a "right" exposure and whether two differing exposures can reach that "rightness". Sharper/higher resolution doesn't have a limit (in a practical sense with photography anyway). Two images exposed differently may give a "right" result after processing concerning exposure, but concerning detail captured, it is either there in the original or it isn't. You would have to argue that blurring detail doesn't affect the sharpness/amount of actual detail captured; and / or that "deblurring" is a 100% accurate undoing of the original blurring. I don't think that argument can stand. The other way to maybe make your case would be to suggest that a non-AA filtered image cannot be sharpened to bring out any more detail.
12-03-2012, 12:33 AM   #13
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,940
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
Your example is fundamentally different.
No, it isn't.
In both cases there is some pre-processing (underexposure, blur) that needs to be counteracted in post (pushing exposure, sharpen). If you chose to omit the post-processing step -- which everyone who posts "K-5 IIs vs K-5 II" comparisons without applying capture sharpening to the K-5 II images does -- you are not providing a level playing field. It is a common mistake, but it is still a mistake.

QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
... concerning detail captured, it is either there in the original or it isn't.
True, except that a camera without an Bayer-AA-filter rarely truly captures more detail. The fact that images have more micro-contrast out of the box makes many believe that there is more detail, but typically one can achieve the same visual acuteness by sharpening an equivalent image from a camera with a Bayer-AA-Filter.

John Bee has posted another example demonstrating that if capture sharpening is applied to a K-5 II, it is very hard to tell it from a K-5 IIs shot.

Forum member John Bee has even demonstrated that the K-5 II can capture more detail than the K-5 IIs (look at the pink pattern left of the Queen of Hearts; it is already destroyed by K-5 IIs moiré but the K-5 II still shows it with all detail.). This is possible due to the fact that the K-5 IIs will produce visual garbage (colour artefacts) in certain situations whereas sharpening can retrieve residual detail that exists in the equivalent shot from the K-5 II.

I keep on typing "Bayer-AA filter" instead of the shorter "AA-filter" because the role of a Bayer-AA-filter is not to suppress luminance moiré, but avoid colour artefacts, including colour moiré. The absence of the filter hence mainly allows colour artefacts to occur and while it obviates capture sharpening (which has its advantages in terms of needing to sharpen noise as well), it typically does not mean that more detail is actually is captured. Only if there is additional blur (e.g., due to camera shake, or defocus), the additional blur added by a Bayer-AA-filter cannot be undone anymore, but if the image would have been sharp to begin with, losing the Bayer-AA-filter is not of any advantage, on the contrary.

Last edited by Class A; 12-03-2012 at 12:50 AM.
12-03-2012, 02:11 AM   #14
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote

No, it isn't.

In both cases there is some pre-processing (underexposure, blur) that needs to be counteracted in post (pushing exposure, sharpen).
Yes, it is.

Again, the difference is in the fact that we are talking about something that cameras have the ability to get "right" as regards exposure (and it should be obvious in light of the fact that we can be either over or under IRT exposure). This is NOT so with detail/information. No camera is anywhere near capturing all the detail in any scene presented to lens and sensor. That's why we are having the conversation in the first place; we are trying to squeeze more detail into our images.

From there, it is, I think, simple elementary reasoning. There is something in front of most digital sensors in the form of an AA-filter (Bayer or not). It isn't an element like a lens that is designed to pass more precise scene information to the sensor; contrary. It is specifically designed, for lack of a better term, to confuse the information by way of blurring it. Now, whether you call it microcontrast or detail (while there is a difference, these are often confused for a reason), at the end of the day either the IIs or the II is going to have more, or equal, microcontrast or detail.

We already know the sensors themselves are equal. One has a filter in front of it that, obviously, blurs fine detail/causes a loss of microcontrast. It is obvious that it affects the entire image, albeit pleasingly in some situations.


QuoteQuote:
. . . except that a camera without an Bayer-AA-filter rarely truly captures more detail.
You admit that it does at least sometimes, then. And, I think this is a personal opinion that will not be shared by many people.

QuoteQuote:
The fact that images have more micro-contrast out of the box makes many believe that there is more detail . . .
This confirms what I was saying above. No matter what we call it pedantically, it is something desired to have more of and gives the impression of more detail.

QuoteQuote:
but typically one can achieve the same visual acuteness by sharpening an equivalent image from a camera with a Bayer-AA-Filter.
Which is true . . . until we apply the same technique to the system that gave us a less blurred microcontrast to begin with. Really, I think this comes down to complaining that the IIs has gotten a head start. Well, yeah! And that's why I'd bet on the IIs to win the race for most detail.
12-03-2012, 02:49 AM   #15
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,496
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
Which is true . . . until we apply the same technique to the system that gave us a less blurred microcontrast to begin with. Really, I think this comes down to complaining that the IIs has gotten a head start. Well, yeah! And that's why I'd bet on the IIs to win the race for most detail.
If you deblur an image such as the K-5 IIs, you end up with an overcooked image. And by overcooked, I don't mean razor sharp, but rather... an image that simply looks bad. The same can be said for an oversharpened image as well. ie. we can only amplify edge contrast or detail to a certain level before things begin to fall apart, and so, there are physical limits to what can and can't be accomplished this way.

That being said, I'm not sure a maximum sharpness presentation is the best approach to take in cases such as these either. Which is why I chose to limit my adjustments to removing the effects of the AA filter exclusively. This way, interested parties can take both images and process them accordingly to see how each holds-up. Otherwise... its unlikely that anyone will reach a satisfactory conclusions through the eyes of another person.

With this in mind, I'd say that the limitations associated with detail extrapolation give us the potential to determine just how much detail each image contains and more importantly... where detail cannot be created where none existed.

Hope this helps.

PS. these results are not exclusive to the K-5 II/K-5 IIs btw. As it turns-out the D800E is also outclassed by the D800 using the very same approach.

Last edited by JohnBee; 12-03-2012 at 02:54 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, ii, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 ii vs, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, pictures, settings, sharpness, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 K-5 II K-5 IIs, e dial issue, Noise Eder Pentax K-5 17 06-03-2014 12:33 AM
K-5 IIs vs K-5 II - can you tell the difference? JohnBee Pentax K-5 85 11-19-2012 10:48 PM
Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs Now In Stock! Adam Pentax K-5 24 10-25-2012 03:38 PM
Suggestion K-5 forum renamed to K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs? Buschmaster Site Suggestions and Help 2 10-16-2012 02:17 PM
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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top