[jcdoss]

I've been wondering that for a few years now. But honestly, do we really care what some Canikon fans think?

The answer to that question is "no," but we should care what uncommitted buyers think.

[jon404]

Just looked on Amazon.. the K-5 II, body only, is US $798. That is quite a deal.

Now, don't laugh, but is the image quality same as or better than my K-01?

And, is the battery the same for both cameras? Interchangeable? Could I use my K-01 battery on a K-5 II?

[Rondec]

Just looked on Amazon.. the K-5 II, body only, is US $798. That is quite a deal.

Now, don't laugh, but is the image quality same as or better than my K-01?

And, is the battery the same for both cameras? Interchangeable? Could I use my K-01 battery on a K-5 II?

Image quality is a little better with K5 II due to 14 bit processing versus 12 for the K-01. The batteries are the same as well.

[normhead]

Just looked on Amazon.. the K-5 II, body only, is US $798. That is quite a deal.

Now, don't laugh, but is the image quality same as or better than my K-01?

And, is the battery the same for both cameras? Interchangeable? Could I use my K-01 battery on a K-5 II?

I love my K-5 / K-01 combination. The batteries are the same, and the K-01 is a good short lens camera, the K-5 a great long lens camera, and if you go out with a 21 ltd a 40 xz and DA* 60-250 on your K-05 , lens changes will be minimal.

[jon404]

Thanks guys -- will start saving up for the K-5 II. Sounds like the II-S is the exactly the same, except for the sensor filter... any actual advantage for an amateur photographer who has no problem sharpening images on the PC?

[aleonx3]

Thanks guys -- will start saving up for the K-5 II. Sounds like the II-S is the exactly the same, except for the sensor filter... any actual advantage for an amateur photographer who has no problem sharpening images on the PC?

I guess not just sharpness but also more details captured.

[Class A]

... any actual advantage for an amateur photographer who has no problem sharpening images on the PC?

It can be of advantage if images are sharper out of the camera since sharpening can also increase noise, but a) a number of sharpening techniques can address this to a large extent, and b) the removal of the Bayer AA filter does not come without cost.

Many K-5 IIs shooters claim they don't have false colour / moiré issues but DPReview managed to create a lot of moiré examples. Their review is lacking in other ways, but at least they demonstrate that moiré can become an issue if one is able to take an image that is sharp at the pixel level.

[bdery]

The answer to that question is "no," but we should care what uncommitted buyers think.

I understand what you mean in principle, but "we" do not work for Pentax And I at least have no Pentax stocks, just some equipment that I love. I don't really favour brand loyalty, though I do favour honesty everywhere, even in reviews.

[Class A]

Sounds like the II-S is the exactly the same, except for the sensor filter... any actual advantage for an amateur photographer who has no problem sharpening images on the PC?

Imaging-Resource have just published reviews for the K-5 II and K-5 IIs. From the latter:

"Even then, a touch of unsharp masking on both images will often leave the K-5 II's result near-indistinguishable from that shot with the K-5 IIs.

For some purposes, that little extra sharpness might be worthwhile, but for my money it's simply not worth the risk of a hard-to-remove artifact in a once-in-a-lifetime shot. The slight reduction in sharpness is one I'm willing to make, for the peace of mind it brings."

I concur with this assessment.

[Macario]

In the comments some people complained about that the review was late and all. And the answer from dpreview was that they do it fair etc that it wasn'r deliberate that the D7100 got reviewed before the K-5II bla bla bla

Well, I just saw that they already have the review up for the Coolpix A (march), which they received after they received the MX-1 (januari). Wondering how they going to explain that now

[jon404]

@Class A -- thanks for the response... that's what I thought.

@Rondec -- as to 14-bit vs 12-bit images. Tell me if this makes sense. On my K-01, I shoot JPGs, not RAW. The large image size, even after cropping, lets me reduce the edited image for web display, or for printing at small 8x12 or smaller sizes. This reduction helps to smooth out any 8-bit JPG imperfections that come in during editing, like when I'm increasing contrast.

So -- when displayed on a PC screen, or printed out at small sizes, I'm not seeing any gain from going from either 14-bit or 12-bit RAW to JPG. Is this just my own poor eyesight, or do others feel the same? Again, we're not talking about making 20" x 30" prints here.

[Rondec]

@Class A -- thanks for the response... that's what I thought.

@Rondec -- as to 14-bit vs 12-bit images. Tell me if this makes sense. On my K-01, I shoot JPGs, not RAW. The large image size, even after cropping, lets me reduce the edited image for web display, or for printing at small 8x12 or smaller sizes. This reduction helps to smooth out any 8-bit JPG imperfections that come in during editing, like when I'm increasing contrast.

So -- when displayed on a PC screen, or printed out at small sizes, I'm not seeing any gain from going from either 14-bit or 12-bit RAW to JPG. Is this just my own poor eyesight, or do others feel the same? Again, we're not talking about making 20" x 30" prints here.

I think 14 bit is more useful when you shoot RAW. To me, the bigger improvements in going to a K5 would be better overall performance -- significantly faster frame rate, deeper buffer, ability to shoot more frames in multi-exposure mode, ability to actually have decent AF-C performance. In fact auto focus is just better overall when it comes to the K5 over the K-01.

Don't get me wrong, I like the K-01 fine, but anything other than good shooting conditions (low light, moving subject) and it will struggle.

[jon404]

@Rondec-- about the K-01... you're right. It takes a while to focus. The lens sort of goes out, then back in. And, the continuous focus tracking doesn't work too well. So for moving subjects, I just use a fast shutter speed, a small aperture, TAv, and try to pre-focus on something at sort of the same distance.

The K-5 II is very appealing... so is the new Ricoh GR. I like shirt-pocket cameras! So it may take a while to lock in on one or the other, but I'll be staying in the Pentax/Ricoh family.

[Class A]

I'm delighted to being able to report that -- based on my suggestion -- Shawn Barnett has added the following bullet point to the "Pros" of the K-5 II review Conclusions:

"Built-in sensor-shift shake reduction effectively stabilizes all mountable lenses"

Kudos to Shawn! If he could respond to the other points I've raised, I'll be floored.