Originally posted by bkpix But shooting a camera with an AA filter assumes you're going to do some sharpening to put the image back together, so it seems odd to me to compare one without sharpening at all.
Correct.
With respect to which approach deserves to be called "fair" or "correct": I do not believe that whether to use the same amount of sharpening (including none) on both images, compared to different amounts of sharpening, is difficult to answer.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, a photographer is after the best image possible. Ergo, one should try to take whatever comes out of the camera to its best possible looking conclusion. Whether this takes different steps for different cameras or not is rather immaterial.
Assume one camera automatically truncates black levels below a certain threshold (some cameras do that, even for RAW files). Would you compare the output of such a camera with the same "black level" processing parameter as you are using for a camera that does not truncate black levels? It is clear to me that you shouldn't as the difference would be accidental but nevertheless prevent one camera's images from looking as good as they could.
Clearly there is a point after which images start to look bad when they are over-sharpened. This point is reached earlier with a K-5 IIs compared to a K-5. It therefore is not the case that whatever headstart the K-5IIs has in terms of micro-contrast, it will continue to keep as sharpening levels are increased in a synchronised processing approach.
Not using any capture-sharpening for a camera with a Bayer-AA-filter in a comparison to a filter-less camera can only be justified by stating either that a) "I don't want to process at all", or b) "I want to see which is the better camera under conditions I arbitrarily specify". Not using any capture-sharpening cannot be justified when the goal is to see which camera produces the best possible image (which implies that the best possible processing is used, which of course will be different).
As Falk wrote, it may still be the case the K-5IIs comes out ahead of a comparison that allows all cameras to show their full potential. I'd of course be happy with that. What I'm not happy with are comparisons that proclaim a "night & day" difference based on artificially limiting the potential of both cameras. Of course, the camera with a Bayer-AA-Filter is much further away from showing its full potential than the filterless one is. That's why such comparisons are not fair.
Originally posted by Digitalis However, that does not excuse the moron who designed the 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG - and not including a focus limiter: BAD design!.
I feel bad for you that you have to put up with a lens that was designed by a moron. I'd be more than happy to put you out of your misery by buying your Simga 100-300/4.
Seriously, though, please show more respect for the people who designed this great lens (which I'd love to own, so if you want to sell, let me know). How many non-macro lenses have a focus limiter? Wouldn't it be better if you could tell the camera which focus range you'd like to operate in for a particular shot? Wouldn't that be a lot more useful than a fixed focus limitation on a lens? Does the fact that the K-5 does not feature such a dynamic focus limitation make the K-5 designers morons?