K-5 II vs K-5 IIs

JayX2A · 02-21-2013, 05:34 AM

I'm glad I have seen this thread as in the same predicament. Seeing pics etc I think I may go down the K5IIs route.

The extra money is not a big issue, just wished I could get it with the 18-135 as a package!

ChuckB28 · 02-21-2013, 06:05 AM

I got the K5IIs and I am quite pleased with it. Just the 18-55 WR does a GREAT job. I can't wait to see what a "good" lens does on this camera. Unlike Canon, you don't have to spend a small fortune on a lens to get a decent picture out of their cameras.

ploetzlich · 02-22-2013, 10:15 AM

I just bought a K-5 IIs on the marketplace and giving my friend my old K5.

**gaweidert** · 02-22-2013, 11:00 AM

Moire will be around as long as the pixels on the sensors are arraigned in grid like pattern. The only way to really get rid of it would be by randomly scattering the sensor pixels across the array. If they were arraigned more like silver halide crystals in film, then moire would be a thing that us old timers would be able to regale newbies with. FWIW, looking at my second K5 (K5 IIs), but I still think film has it all over digital photography.

BTW, weave structure predate imaging sensors by several millenia I blame the sensors for not being designed to take this into account. :-) Bad vignettes drive me nuts too.

**grahame** · 03-31-2013, 07:13 AM

I wonder if there is any difference in exposure under same light condition after removal of AA filter? In theory, AA-less sensor should get more light thus fast shutter speed. If it is true, it should be the biggest sell point for me, since I can keep either ISO lower or shutter speed higher under low light. Any hand-on experience?

**Digitalis** · 03-31-2013, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by grahame

I wonder if there is any difference in exposure under same light condition after removal of AA filter? In theory, AA-less sensor should get more light thus fast shutter speed. If it is true, it should be the biggest sell point for me, since I can keep either ISO lower or shutter speed higher under low light.

Considering how thin Bayer AA filters are the difference in transmission would be less than 0.001 of a stop.

Originally posted by gaweidert

Moire will be around as long as the pixels on the sensors are arraigned in grid like pattern.

Incorrect - Moire is only a problem with Bayer array sensors, if you remove the Bayer Colour filter array - you end up with a monochrome sensor: which is immune to moire, but the individual pixels are still in a grid pattern.

Anvh · 03-31-2013, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

Considering how thin Bayer AA filters are the difference in transmission would be less than 0.001 of a stop.

Also the AA filter is not removed but replaced by a neutral filter. In the end it should make little to no difference.
In terms of noise the difference will be that you don't need to sharpen a camera without an AA filter so much then one with.

**grahame** · 03-31-2013, 10:41 AM

I see. Thanks.
For some reason, my impression was the AA filter caused 0.5-1.0 stops of light loss. Now I found this thread says that: AA filter removal - I'm gonna do it: Olympus SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
That sounds way too much. And I also read this, says <1/8 stop: VAF-Series Optical Anti-Aliasing Filters: FAQ

03-31-2013, 08:08 AM	#51
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by grahame I wonder if there is any difference in exposure under same light condition after removal of AA filter? In theory, AA-less sensor should get more light thus fast shutter speed. If it is true, it should be the biggest sell point for me, since I can keep either ISO lower or shutter speed higher under low light. Considering how thin Bayer AA filters are the difference in transmission would be less than 0.001 of a stop. Originally posted by gaweidert Moire will be around as long as the pixels on the sensors are arraigned in grid like pattern. Incorrect - Moire is only a problem with Bayer array sensors, if you remove the Bayer Colour filter array - you end up with a monochrome sensor: which is immune to moire, but the individual pixels are still in a grid pattern. Last edited by Digitalis; 03-31-2013 at 08:15 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Firmware For K-01, K-30, K-5, K-5 II, K-5 IIs, K-r	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	63	02-18-2013 02:04 PM
K-5 ii vs K-5 iis comparison with higher sharpness in K-5 ii	kataria0	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	62	12-22-2012 10:12 PM
Pentax K-5 IIs vs K-5 II (take two...)	JohnBee	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	9	12-06-2012 04:10 AM
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
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

02-21-2013, 05:34 AM	#46
JayX2A Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 120	I'm glad I have seen this thread as in the same predicament. Seeing pics etc I think I may go down the K5IIs route. The extra money is not a big issue, just wished I could get it with the 18-135 as a package!

02-21-2013, 06:05 AM	#47
ChuckB28 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 145 Original Poster	I got the K5IIs and I am quite pleased with it. Just the 18-55 WR does a GREAT job. I can't wait to see what a "good" lens does on this camera. Unlike Canon, you don't have to spend a small fortune on a lens to get a decent picture out of their cameras.

02-22-2013, 10:15 AM	#48
ploetzlich Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: CA Posts: 74	I just bought a K-5 IIs on the marketplace and giving my friend my old K5.

02-22-2013, 11:00 AM	#49
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,327	Moire will be around as long as the pixels on the sensors are arraigned in grid like pattern. The only way to really get rid of it would be by randomly scattering the sensor pixels across the array. If they were arraigned more like silver halide crystals in film, then moire would be a thing that us old timers would be able to regale newbies with. FWIW, looking at my second K5 (K5 IIs), but I still think film has it all over digital photography. BTW, weave structure predate imaging sensors by several millenia I blame the sensors for not being designed to take this into account. :-) Bad vignettes drive me nuts too.

03-31-2013, 07:13 AM	#50
grahame Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,041	I wonder if there is any difference in exposure under same light condition after removal of AA filter? In theory, AA-less sensor should get more light thus fast shutter speed. If it is true, it should be the biggest sell point for me, since I can keep either ISO lower or shutter speed higher under low light. Any hand-on experience?

03-31-2013, 09:46 AM	#52
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Digitalis Considering how thin Bayer AA filters are the difference in transmission would be less than 0.001 of a stop. Also the AA filter is not removed but replaced by a neutral filter. In the end it should make little to no difference. In terms of noise the difference will be that you don't need to sharpen a camera without an AA filter so much then one with.

03-31-2013, 10:41 AM	#53
grahame Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,041	I see. Thanks. For some reason, my impression was the AA filter caused 0.5-1.0 stops of light loss. Now I found this thread says that: AA filter removal - I'm gonna do it: Olympus SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review That sounds way too much. And I also read this, says <1/8 stop: VAF-Series Optical Anti-Aliasing Filters: FAQ