[deadwolfbones]

Yeah, the K-5 IIs will produce moire, but it's not a real concern in day-to-day shooting. When it does crop up, it's easily dealt with, as digitalis said.

...of course, processing to remove moire destroys detail just like the AA filter does (though maybe not as much?). It's give and take.

[valy]

I wouldn't be so flippant about it if I were you.

How k5II deal with this situation? It will produce moire?

[Digitalis]

actually the K5II will most likely also produce moire when used under the same circumstances, the Bayer AA filter does reduce the appearance of moire - it cannot eliminate it entirely.

[valy]

So actualy the k5iis is not in disadvantage regarding this aspect. Perhaps only color moire (like in this image http://skrzynia.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ii-iis-digitalcamerainfocom-x3rawvs.jpg ) could not ocur in k5II, but this is as pixel level and visible at 100% crop.

[cadart]

I am just wondering if Pentax released the k5iis without any mention of the missing anti-aliasing filter etc etc.....I just wonder how many people would be having a discussion on MOIRE?????.....just wondering

[Anvh]

Yeah, the K-5 IIs will produce moire, but it's not a real concern in day-to-day shooting. When it does crop up, it's easily dealt with, as digitalis said.

...of course, processing to remove moire destroys detail just like the AA filter does (though maybe not as much?). It's give and take.

Colour moire is easy but pattern moire is different deal.

About the 8% sharpness, those reviews always look on unedited photos, the differnce with an edited one would be very different.
The question is are there any details lost that can not be recovered due to the AA filter, no one at this time seem to have really test that although the sharpness comparison some did here with the RAW photos seem to suggest you can recover a lot or at least it appears that way.

[daveej]

so the K-5iis is more likely to have moiré and more likely to be sharper than the K-5ii.

[normhead]

The only way you will know what it brings to the table is to use a IIs, Norm. Talk is cheap but having one in your hands is completely different.

Jack

I agree, talk is cheap, post some pictures. Show me something I can't do with my K-5.

[JinDesu]

so the K-5iis is more likely to have moiré and more likely to be sharper than the K-5ii.

I think you got it!

[lightbulb]

Maybe the world will be a better place if we conclude all 3 are 99.9 the same. Let's get out and take some awesome pictures shall we?

[normhead]

If you make it 98.3 I'm in...

[Nass]

The S would be of benefit to me, but only because the detail I capture through stacking on 400 lp/mm glass is down to the 5 micron level, so it might give me marginally improved detail. Or, to put it another way, I'd have to spend $1,500 on a miyutuyo 10x infinite objective to get an incremental improvement on the Nikon10x I currently use. Or I can go buy an S. And it's true, you might not even see a difference on a small print. But if I cropped and printed just a small part, you would.

[Digitalis]

it's true, you might not even see a difference on a small print. But if I cropped and printed just a small part, you would.

Indeed you would, and even at f/16 diffraction softening isn't further compounded by the blurring of the Bayer AA filter:

[froeschle]

More subtlety to the theme and some questions to answer:

1. What is (the purpose of) a so-called "AA-Filter"?
   
   A pair of birefringent crystals (that helps to avoid false color problems):
   
   https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/203117-k-5-iis-pro...ml#post2146920
   

   [...] The so-called AA filter is no anti-alias filter. It is only that everybody (falsely) calls it so. [...]

   https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/198506-k-5-iis-same-mark-2-but...ml#post2121207
   

   [...] One way of looking at an AA filter-less sensor is to observe that each part of a scene that corresponds to the size of a sensel on the sensor is only seen with one colour. The sensel is colour blind to other colours and hence only records one colour independently of the real spectrum the particular portion of the scene has. The AA filter, however, manages to expose the same portion of the scene to four sensels (which in combination see all colours), making sure that its full colour can be captured. [...]

   https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/203117-k-5-iis-pro...aa-filter.html
   

   [...] However, an AA-filter is nevertheless required because a sensor with a Bayer colour filter array only records on[e] colour component (Red, Green, or Blue) per sensel. Without the blurring caused by the AA-filter, a set of photons hitting one sensel would only have one colour component recorded for them. The role of the AA-filter is to distribute this set of photons so that it hits sensels of all kinds (Red, 2x Green, and Blue).
   
   The following makes it clear that, strictly speaking, "AA-filter" is a misnomer for the birefringent plates that are put before imaging sensors. [...]

2. Is an "AA-filterless" camera sharper?
   
   A difference of about "8%" might be observed (see #1, #37) when comparing lw/ph results (using comparisons of JPGs or RAWs using the same settings).
   
   BUT:
   
   Does this really imply an increase in sharpness/resolution and in captured detail?
   Is more (real) information stored in the image?
   And if so, when?
   Obviously, a picture taken with an "AA-filter" requires and tolerates more sharpening.
   Can the blurring effect be undone by capture-sharpening without loss of information/details?
   
3. What and how to compare?
   
   Is it really appropriate to compare JPGs or RAWs using the same settings (fair comparison of data)?
   
   JPGs:
   "[...] it’s clear that even the “Natural” JPEG color mode sharpens shots quite a bit, both through actual sharpening algorithms and with contrast adjustments. [...]" (link in #1)
   So, would it be possible to tweak the JPG settings to give the same output in both cameras?
   Obviously, this would not be a good idea for the in-camera standard settings - if a manufacturer wants to sell the filterless version.
   
   RAWs:
   Is the RAW-file really "unmodified"?
   Should a RAW development not include an optimal setting for each camera version (including e.g. adapted sharpening)?
   
4. How subtle is the difference?
   
   What would be the observable difference, even if the stated "8%" as an upper threshold value would be valid?
   Would this extra detail be meaningful?
   
   In comparison:
   What is the difference in resolution between JPGs and RAWs?
   What is the variance in using different samples of the same lens (sample variation)?
   
   Are false colour problems less apparent or annoying?
   Usually, in free market economy, additional precision parts are only included if they are needed.
   
5. What about noise?
   
   Is there a notable difference in noise / image quality?
   Compare K-5 IIs, K-5 II and K-5 in DxOmark:
   DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
   
6. ...

[Anvh]

great post froeschle

As for some of your points.
I agree that you should look at the end result so to say, and one of the basics things you do with RAW is input sharpening.
I think that after the input sharpening is applied that a quite valid comparison can be made in regards to details and noise.