Originally posted by JinDesu But can you get that sharpness with digital sharpening? You might hit the point where artifacts start showing.
You'd need wide/thick sharpening for the sharpness to show over greater distances or smaller sizes and I believe that's what Pentax did. When you sharpen for print, you do/should ind fact sharpen a bit too much vs. how you would sharpen for display on monitor. I'm claiming the sample to be shamelessly doctored - amd who knows. maybe the AA example was photographed with a lesser lens on top of that.
Look at these for comparison:
Nikon D800 vs D800E Digital SLR Review
You get much larger photos by clicking on the thumbs, but how big a difference is there. Virtually none - if any. Shouldn't it be even clearer since these photo's are larger and digital photos, not photos or prints, than the K-II samples depicted here? I'm not saying the K-II samples should look exactly the same. Different sensors, different AA filters and all that, but the results should be much much closer.
The depicted photo is not exactly a downscale photo (the prints), but a small size depiction. The basic idea should still apply like it would with posters. One printed in low DPI vs. another one just like it, but printed at say 1200 DPI. You wont be able to tell the difference once you get far enough away from them.
RobA Oz: It's not often we hear about it and I'm pretty sure such matters are well protected to a great length. I also do not look deliberately for such incidents so I do not have many examples, but Nokia recently got caught faking the IQ of one of their latest smart phones. Sony, although not related to photography, did it some years ago regarding the potential pf Play Station 2. Same excuse was used in both cases "we tried to show the end result". Yeah, right.
Nokia's PureView still photos also include fakes (update: Nokia confirms) | The Verge Killzone 2 - Killzone Wiki - The Killzone Database! - under Development