[brntoki]

Andy Warhol was not at all obsessive about sharpness. My studio teacher at Ryerson PI recommended keeping a throw away camera in your car glove box... he said " Those plastic lenses are better than you think (because you can mold plastic to parbolic shapes you can't produce with glass) and produce some interesting shots." Maybe more photographers need counselling when it comes to their obsession on sharpness. Many of the world's greatest images were not taken with the world's sharpest lenses. Sorry to be argumentative, but lets say there is an 8% increase in sharpness. Let's use the increased pixel theory as espoused by Digitalis, let's say I'm printing at 100 DPI on my K-5 II, so a 49 inch print. (4900 x 1.08 =5229) I'm assuming I can now print to 52 inches on my K-5 IIs with the same clarity. So we're talking another 3 inches, bigger, 1.5 inches at 200 dpi. That would be my perspective, am I wrong here?

No. I definitely said that it is important to most, meaning that it isn't to all. It depends on what you're after, but the vast majority of photographers are after ultra sharpness and resolution. If it weren't so, why would we have the expensive glass and, now, filterless sensors? The manufacturers are meeting a real demand. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is. And what the 5-IIs offers instead of the II is going to be worth $100 to most photographers. That's my position at least. Does anybody have sales figures?

[deadwolfbones]

No. I definitely said that it is important to most, meaning that it isn't to all. It depends on what you're after, but the vast majority of photographers are after ultra sharpness and resolution. If it weren't so, why would we have the expensive glass and, now, filterless sensors? The manufacturers are meeting a real demand. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is. And what the 5-IIs offers instead of the II is going to be worth $100 to most photographers. That's my position at least. Does anybody have sales figures?

I'd argue that the vast majority of photographers buy point & shoots or entry-level system cameras and don't care about sharpness beyond having images that look clear on a computer monitor. But of course that's not what you meant; you meant "the vast majority of photographers like me," i.e. enthusiasts.

[normhead]

No. I definitely said that it is important to most, meaning that it isn't to all. It depends on what you're after, but the vast majority of photographers are after ultra sharpness and resolution. If it weren't so, why would we have the expensive glass and, now, filterless sensors? The manufacturers are meeting a real demand. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is. And what the 5-IIs offers instead of the II is going to be worth $100 to most photographers. That's my position at least. Does anybody have sales figures?

I have many times demonstrated, both practically and theoretically, that unless you view images at a certain size... the extra detail becomes meaningless. If you reduce the file size, the original LW/PH numbers are reduced. With my own somewhat flawed testing method I found, that D800 and K-5 images were indistinguishable once reduced to a picture width of 3000 pixels. There was no fairy dust making the D800 images better. Sharpness is like anything else. If you don't use it you lose it. Comparing images full size where the print size would be about 57 inches, and using that to compare images, is pretty meaningless to the average photographer. Even the average pro. People tell me they can see the difference between a D800 image and a K-5 image on their computer screen. But they won't post screen captures to prove their point. There's a reason for that. They don't do blind tests and therefore their opinions are unreliable.

[brntoki]

I have many times demonstrated, both practically and theoretically, that unless you view images at a certain size... the extra detail becomes meaningless. If you reduce the file size, the original LW/PH numbers are reduced. With my own somewhat flawed testing method I found, that D800 and K-5 images were indistinguishable once reduced to a picture width of 3000 pixels. There was no fairy dust making the D800 images better. Sharpness is like anything else. If you don't use it you lose it. Comparing images full size where the print size would be about 57 inches, and using that to compare images, is pretty meaningless to the average photographer. Even the average pro. People tell me they can see the difference between a D800 image and a K-5 image on their computer screen. But they won't post screen captures to prove their point. There's a reason for that. They don't do blind tests and therefore their opinions are unreliable.

I can't argue with you; I think you're right. I think education is in order. But, this doesn't exactly address, for example, my points about having sharper rendition of what is resolved by the sensor to begin with. To me, that's a big deal.

But again, I agree with your conclusions, and if it weren't for other factors, I would indeed be ordering a k-5IIs. Less overall resolution, but sharper, truer rendition of what is resolved. In case this sounds confusing to anyone, the point is that in practical terms we can only use so much resolution, and 16MP, for example, is really a heck of a lot. I'm not ordering the D800 for 36MP over 16MP, though it's nice to know I have resolution in the bank should I want or need it. I like the look of full frame images over aps-c, am in the need to upgrade from a very small m43 camera, need a system that I am confident isn't going to be obsoleted, and several other factors. The difference between the D800 and D800E isn't as big as the K-5II/s, and only shows in apertures that are less relevant to the photography I usually do. But, I would get the E version if it were only $100 more. The D800 looks frustrating. The filter blurs detail enough to soften it, but often not enough to get rid of moire.

And about sharpness: Sharpening before printing or uploading almost without fail improves all images. No matter how they were captured or processed, sharpened images are (unless improperly done) going to make the image look better. This isn't about resolution, but about a well presented image. The point is, I can agree with the premise that higher resolution often does not translate into a better final product. Sharpness, on the other hand, almost always will.

Some have said 5IIs looks better at 16x24 print sizes than the D600. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

[Digitalis]

Let's use the increased pixel theory as espoused by Digitalis, let's say I'm printing at 100 DPI on my K-5 II, so a 49 inch print. (4900 x 1.08 =5229) I'm assuming I can now print to 52 inches on my K-5 IIs with the same clarity. So we're talking another 3 inches, bigger, 1.5 inches at 200 dpi. That would be my perspective, am I wrong here?

At what point did I suggest that the removal of the Bayer AA filter increased the pixel count? All I have said is that information is being lost due to the blurring caused by the Bayer AA filter. The Bayer AA filter adds a degree of blurring to an image for instance: an image from a pentax FA31mm f/1.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6 the image will have a higher degree of per-pixel actuance with the K5IIs than it would on the K5II - this is because the Bayer AA filter causing the blurring is gone. It is possible to sharpen an image to counter the blurring added by the filter but you are still limited by what the sensor was able to capture the instant the image was made - which means: the information that was lost due to AA filter blurring is lost forever*. The appeal of the K5IIs is that you are capturing all the detail the lens projects onto the sensor, warts and all - the practical upshot of this is that less sharpening is required to produce the desired result the less problematic noise and sharpening artefacts are going to be. Yes, technically you can get away with printing the K5IIs image 3 inches bigger than an image from the K5II because of this increase in per-pixel acutance but the effective pixel counts of both cameras remain identical.

My studio teacher at Ryerson PI recommended keeping a throw away camera in your car glove box... he said " Those plastic lenses are better than you think (because you can mold plastic to parbolic shapes you can't produce with glass) and produce some interesting shots."

To Quote Herbert Keppler- "..if we all buy supercompact, gutless optical wonders, we will inevitably wind up using the types of lenses we justly deserve"


*there are de-convolution image processors but I have been less than impressed by the results, they have their limitations as well - there is only so much that can be recovered.

[brntoki]

I'd argue that the vast majority of photographers buy point & shoots or entry-level system cameras and don't care about sharpness beyond having images that look clear on a computer monitor. But of course that's not what you meant; you meant "the vast majority of photographers like me," i.e. enthusiasts.

So now I'm an enthusiast? Don't insult me! j/k

But yeah, you seem to get what I was saying. I would argue the vast majority of people who buy point and shoots or entry-level system cameras are just people who, well, buy point and shoots or entry-level system cameras. Photographer isn't what comes to mind, frankly.

[cadart]

I think the conclusion is very simple......if you read every single lens review on this website you will see one word over and over again.....SHARPNESS!!!!!!
Is the k5iis worth an extra $100 for extra sharpness....of course it is. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

[Schmidlapper]

Question: Does the Bayer AA filter create less optical sharpness like say dust on a lens might, or because the algorithm to remove the induced blur isn't good enough to get it back to original?

[lightbulb]

I think the conclusion is very simple......if you read every single lens review on this website you will see one word over and over again.....SHARPNESS!!!!!!
Is the k5iis worth an extra $100 for extra sharpness....of course it is. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

[normhead]

I think the conclusion is very simple......if you read every single lens review on this website you will see one word over and over again.....SHARPNESS!!!!!!
Is the k5iis worth an extra $100 for extra sharpness....of course it is. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

The difference for me is theoretical sharpness compared to visual sharpness in the images you look at.

The question should have been framed... would you pay $100 for 8% more sharpness, that you will probably never use unless you pixel peep, or produce extremely large prints. Should you pay for more than you use?

If the level of sharpness in my K-5 is acceptable for what I do, and I can't foresee a time when I need that level of sharpness offered, then yes, paying for more sharpness is pretty silly. You might do it, but that's just human nature. We define a good deal then go for it, whether it makes any sense or not.

So, the first things you have to establish is that you can see a difference. Not pixel peeping, but in the real world. And believe it or not... as far as I know, that has never been done on this site. In fact I've posted D800 and K-5 images which would suggest that unless you're using more than 3000 pixels horizontally across it doesn't even make a difference if you're using a K-5 or D800.

Further in other tests, I've pretty much determined that on a K-5 you can't really distinguish a difference of less than 150-200 lw/ph looking at the images in a normal viewing environment. This from looking at images at the same focal length pictures from different lenses. 8% falls somewhere less than that.

Think of it as viewing two smooth tables. They both look and feel smooth. Does it matter to you that one was polished with a one micron grit and the other with a half micron grit. One is twice as smooth as the other, but why would you pay for that? As a cabinet maker, we stopped sanding our pine furniture at 220 grit. We could have used 600 for a "smoother finish", but the customer would have been paying for a quality of finishing that would make no difference to his user experience. This analysis based purely on "sharpness" is very similar. You can pay for as much as you want based on the theoretical limits to sharpness, but unless you can show how it makes a difference to your photography, you're buying on speculation that it will. Numbers are just numbers.

So there are many reasons that an 8% increase in sharpness might not be worth $100. As I indicated before... if you can bump that up to 20% I might be interested. So let's be clear, if I was buying right now, I would probably go for the IIs, although, as a mostly landscape photographer, the false colour in the posted images is troubling. Possibly enough to make me stick with the II. But as a K-5 user, 8% is not worth the upgrade, which will cost me considerably more than $100.

You have to ask. What are you getting for that $100? If all it is is bragging rights when pixel peeping... then no. If someone shows me it means something in some category I care about, then I can evaluate.

[cadart]

This sounds wayyyyy too deep and serious for me.......I might just step outside and take some photographs. Cheers

[jbinpg]

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

[daveej]

I think the conclusion is very simple......if you read every single lens review on this website you will see one word over and over again.....SHARPNESS!!!!!!
Is the k5iis worth an extra $100 for extra sharpness....of course it is. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

but it's not a "free" increased sharpness is it? it also comes with an increase in moiré. so, is the increase in sharpness worth the increase of moiré? ... there's your grey.

[cadart]

but it's not a "free" increased sharpness is it? it also comes with an increase in moiré. so, is the increase in sharpness worth the increase of moiré? ... there's your grey.

I hope you aren't serious. Look at the "post your k5iis photos here" thread and tell me how much moire you see.
Moire....?????? Give me a break. Its all rubbish.

[Digitalis]

Moire....?????? Give me a break. Its all rubbish.

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


Thankfully Moire is pretty easy to deal with, especially with the tools in C1 and LR4