[ElJamoquio]

K200D has better sharpness of corners than K-5. Sometimes - Much better.

You should be able to more clearly see the difference when the absolute best optics are employed - and corner optics aren't the best. You might be observing some other phenomenon.

[Tom S.]

I find this highly offensive. I do not come to a photography forum to be subjected to anecdotes of elite mercenaries killing in immoral invasions.

I suggest you view all the threads he has posted about his time in Afghanistan. He is not there because he wants to be, he is there because like any soldier - elite or otherwise - he was ordered to go. You will also see many photos of him and his fellow soldiers interacting with the people of Afghanistan in positive ways. Beyond that, he has subjected his camera to more abuse intentionally and unintentionally, using it in a hostile (temperature, sand and dust), which all support the ruggedness of the camera and lenses.

When you look at the whole series instead of singling out one photo, I believe you will find a man who is trying to make the best of a situation he must endure.

[ElJamoquio]

Here's a good explanation:

Discerning the Differences between the Nikon D800 and D800E | BH inDepth

[Winder]

Ignorant to what goes on with an AA filter on a camera.. why can't it be a software enabled/disabled system like on computer videocard? Is there something inherent to a camera's AA system that it cannot be disabled/enabled on the fly?

AA filter is actually a physical filter that is adhered to the sensor itself. Some people claim it absorbs less than 15% of the light depending on strength and softens the image.

Depending on the subject a camera with no AA filter can render significantly sharper images. Very crisp, but there are a lot of variables. Cheap lenses can also act as an AA filter and prevent morie form appearing. If pixel density gets high enough then you don't need an AA filter. I would probably take a 24MP APS-C without an AA filter, but I don't know about a 16MP. For a perfect lens I am told you need 40+MP to totally eliminate morie on APS-C, but there are no perfect lenses. Most lenses would not get sharp enough to show morie on a 24MP APS-C until after F/5.6. The softness of the lens at wide apertures would act as an AA filter. On kit lenses you might never see morie appear, or it may only show up at F/8 in the middle of the zoom range. Diffraction also acts as an AA filter at smaller apertures.

I think people who stack HDR images are pretty much immune from the effects of morie because of the stacking, but I don't shoot HDR so I don't know. Adobe has been working hard at developing the tools to eliminate morie from RAW files in processing. I think Adobe is pretty close to making it a reality. I don't see Pentax going without the AA unless they have a software solution.

[ogl]

You should be able to more clearly see the difference when the absolute best optics are employed - and corner optics aren't the best. You might be observing some other phenomenon.

I will buy K-5IIs and will show you the difference

[reivax]

AA filter is actually a physical filter that is adhered to the sensor itself. Some people claim it absorbs less than 15% of the light depending on strength and softens the image.

Depending on the subject a camera with no AA filter can render significantly sharper images. Very crisp, but there are a lot of variables. Cheap lenses can also act as an AA filter and prevent morie form appearing. If pixel density gets high enough then you don't need an AA filter. I would probably take a 24MP APS-C without an AA filter, but I don't know about a 16MP. For a perfect lens I am told you need 40+MP to totally eliminate morie on APS-C, but there are no perfect lenses. Most lenses would not get sharp enough to show morie on a 24MP APS-C until after F/5.6. The softness of the lens at wide apertures would act as an AA filter. On kit lenses you might never see morie appear, or it may only show up at F/8 in the middle of the zoom range. Diffraction also acts as an AA filter at smaller apertures.

I think people who stack HDR images are pretty much immune from the effects of morie because of the stacking, but I don't shoot HDR so I don't know. Adobe has been working hard at developing the tools to eliminate morie from RAW files in processing. I think Adobe is pretty close to making it a reality. I don't see Pentax going without the AA unless they have a software solution.

So, what type of shooting is a AA filtered camera recommended for? And what type of shooting is a AA filter-less camera recommended for?

I have no idea which type of camera I would want. Extra sharpness seems great but I wonder if it would be a huge pain for some types of shooting?

[Heie]

Wow you go to bed and wake up not expecting this

I find this highly offensive. I do not come to a photography forum to be subjected to anecdotes of elite mercenaries killing in immoral invasions.

I just wanted to comment and say that it was never my intention to start a political debate, nor was it my intention to subject anyone to "anecdotes of killing" (which I don't recall doing). Also, I am very much not a mercenary. Mercenaries are "gun for hire" types - i.e. no allegiance to anything (country, flag, etc) other than the biggest paycheck. Think Blackwater types. I am a U.S. Soldier, and I have sworn an oath. And honestly, I would do my job for significantly less pay. But I digress...

I thank everyone that understood the intent behind my post and defended that intention and not allowing the post to develop into a political debate and thus get locked - that was handled with incredible maturity and poise - thank you. And while there were many posts that I was proud of, there are three specifically that I want to highlight:

I thought Heie presented an articulate and objective reason for his point of view on the K5. Because his surroundings are not to the liking of someone, doesn't detract from the argument that that is the context for the comment on durability.

That was 100% my intention - at no time did I intend to throw any sort of agenda into my prose, and I appreciate the understanding of that by the majority.

And aren't you fortunate to not only have the right to be offended, but the right to express that you are offended. For my part, I'm offended at your characterization of the fine men and women of the US armed forces putting their lives on the line, spilling their precious blood, and dying far from home in defense of my life, liberty, and property rights. Personally, I don't think US troops should ever be stationed overseas fighting on foreign soil. I would prefer they defend the American people here at home. I believe the federal government can do a better job at lower cost by engaging in defense at home, not offense overseas. But that's not my call, and I direct my displeasure at the worthless politicians, not at the brave and selfless members of our armed forces.

I believe this captures the tone of all the posts that might have gotten a bit political, and to that tone, I want to say thank you. Your support is much appreciated

I suggest you view all the threads he has posted about his time in Afghanistan. He is not there because he wants to be, he is there because like any soldier - elite or otherwise - he was ordered to go. You will also see many photos of him and his fellow soldiers interacting with the people of Afghanistan in positive ways. Beyond that, he has subjected his camera to more abuse intentionally and unintentionally, using it in a hostile (temperature, sand and dust), which all support the ruggedness of the camera and lenses. When you look at the whole series instead of singling out one photo, I believe you will find a man who is trying to make the best of a situation he must endure.

Thank you very much, Tom.

Also I was going to encourage Smeggypants to do the same - please read my updates (which you can access via my signature), as I can ensure you they are as far from "anecdotes of killing" as possible. You may not agree with the war, you may not agree with the need for soldiers. But I will find you very hard pressed to disagree with my current employment - training Afghan soldier that they they may be competent and proficient enough to one day no longer require our or any other foreign country's assistance - so should my children ever travel to Afghanistan, they will be doing so carrying only a camera, not a rifle and body armor. Because this really is a beautiful country, filled with what I would argue is one of the world's most unique and significant examples of modernity (skyscrapers, cell phones, internet) surrounded by isolated pockets of antiquity (no running water, no electricity, no vehicles).

And again, Smeggypants, the intent was to validate why I believe my opinion regarding the need for ultimate durability (and the lack thereof/degradation of such provided by tilt/articulating screens) in the highest tier cameras to be correct, as opposed to the ubiquitous "This is what needs to happen" with little supporting evidence (which is extremely frustrating and adds nothing to any discussion, btw). It is largely because of my experiences as a soldier, both deployed and not, that I have been given the opportunity to put my equipment through such torture (and thus the ensuing opportunity to validate Pentax's purported claims of durability and weather sealing thus far).

I hope this does not stir further political quarrels.

Very Respectfully,
Heie

[ogl]

So, what type of shooting is a AA filtered camera recommended for? And what type of shooting is a AA filter-less camera recommended for?

I have no idea which type of camera I would want. Extra sharpness seems great but I wonder if it would be a huge pain for some types of shooting?

No any pain for K10D/K200D/645D/M8/M9

[Alizarine]

I find this highly offensive. I do not come to a photography forum to be subjected to anecdotes of elite mercenaries killing in immoral invasions.

What's with the sudden personal attack here...? I thought we come to photography forums to discuss about taking pictures and about cameras...

[Caat]

So in summary the K-II/s is going to be a K-01/K-30 sensor and processor in a K-5 body with a new AF system? (with the S not having an AA filter).

An excellent camera then and one which continues Pentax's incremental approach to camera development. However I suspect that RiceHigh's apparent plan to discredit Pentax by talking about a 24mp K-3 as a virtual certainty, when it's increasingly apparent that it's not on the horizon, may pay off.

I say this because the K-5II announced in isolation looks a little weak. If I was being very critical I might say that the K-5 II is merely a K-5 with the AF system Pentax should have had several years ago. The issue is that, yes, the K-5 is a superb camera that requires little to improve it. I can even sort of get the argument that improving specs for the sake of it doesn't improve your photography so why do more to keep the K-5 current than you have to. However Pentax needs to grow it's market share. This camera may help it maintain it but will it attract new buyers? New buyers who have more choice of ILC than ever?

Pentax has been bought and sold twice in 5 years. It's vulnerable. I know that Ricoh has only just bought Pentax but the fact that they haven't had much time doesn't change the fact that they need to act faster.

Of course the above may not be on the money if a K-3 is coming or Pentax has something up their sleeve. But whatever it is I think they need to announce it at Photokina even if it doesn't get released until the New Year/Spring. Ricoh needs to commit to the statements it makes about making it big in cameras using Pentax otherwise it's meaningless.

[Alizarine]

Pentax has been bought and sold twice in 5 years. It's vulnerable.

As an asset, or corporate identity, in the eyes of investors and the Canikon crowd, perhaps. But as a brand, I think it still stands strong. Kodak on the other hand went downhill after their first few DSLRs; they crumbled and nobody was interested to buy their camera division (if it were held up for sale back then). Pentax on the other hand, may have gone away too but the fact that their bucket was not left without a running financial tap means there's something with Pentax that's still worth investing on.

[Thibaud]

K-5 II & K-5 IIs seems to be true : https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.486640398015687.114911.158204330859297&type=3

[Nitrok]

Photos from Pentax Spain Facebook page.

[JohnLegrand]

I was in Japan for summer. And i was Shocked. The only cameras i saw were K30's. I couldnt believe my eyes. They were everywhere!!!

Selling like crazy over there! and this is why



Heavy Marketing In the middle of a crazy busy big street next to a HUGE Yodabashi Camera shop. People try and buy!

[french_mike]

So, true or fake .... That first image look real