[Class A]

To my eye, the K-5 IIs equals the D600 in resolution and shows no more moire.

As I see it:

• K-5 II vs K-5 IIs: The K-5 IIs does not really show more detail (more micro-contrast, but not significantly more detail) but a lot more false colour. The K-5 II shot didn't receive more capture sharpening (as it should have) but looks already very good in comparison.
  
• K-5 IIs vs D600: The D600 cleary shows more detail but without the artefacts of the K-5 IIs.

This comparison shows more false colour from the K-5IIs, this time creating moiré.


Interestingly, the K-5 II JPG is bigger, suggesting that it records more detail?!
Due to the JPG compression algorithm, a file will be the bigger, the more fine detail needs to be preserved.

This time, I took the liberty and capture sharpened the K-5 image to restore the micro-contrast that the AA-filter compromised.

---

Last edited by Class A; 11-10-2012 at 06:29 PM.

[normhead]

I think you're making a mistake using jpegs.. it's certainly not relevant to me...

anyway I used the raw images...

Sorry if the files are big, I want to show exactly what I did.

In this image, in the raw, the D600 K-5 IIs and 5D Mk II all show false colour, only the K-5 got it right.



This is the second time I've seen that face to "prove the lack of detail in the K-5 IIs. Unfortunately the image below shows the K-5 IIs in a darker area , with much better detail in this darker area. Generally when you have lost detail in one part of an image but you have better detail in another, you have an exposure problem.



In the feather detail, an area where you might expect moire, the K-5 IIs holds it's own, 100%. Maybe even excels.



In the woven part of the image, IMO the K-5IIs image is clearly the best.



You really need to look at all parts of the image to make any kind of comparison. I spent quite a bit of time on these images. I'm confident given a fair test, the K-5 IIs' images are equal to any of these cameras or better. And the areas where the K-5 IIs is weakest would be the images of things I'm unlikey to ever want to photograph in any case.

[philbaum]

I think you're making a mistake using jpegs.. it's certainly not relevant to me...

anyway I used the raw images...

Sorry if the files are big, I want to show exactly what I did.

In this image, in the raw, the D600 K-5 IIs and 5D Mk II all show false colour, only the K-5 got it right.



This is the second time I've seen that face to "prove the lack of detail in the K-5 IIs. Unfortunately the image below shows the K-5 IIs in a darker area , with much better detail in this darker area. Generally when you have lost detail in one part of an image but you have better detail in another, you have an exposure problem.



In the feather detail, an area where you might expect moire, the K-5 IIs holds it's own, 100%. Maybe even excels.



In the woven part of the image, IMO the K-5IIs image is clearly the best.



You really need to look at all parts of the image to make any kind of comparison. I spent quite a bit of time on these images. I'm confident given a fair test, the K-5 IIs' images are equal to any of these cameras or better. And the areas where the K-5 IIs is weakest would be the images of things I'm unlikey to ever want to photograph in any case.

I agree with you on jpegs. If one compares the default jpeg images between K5 and K5 II, the K5II looks superior. If one then sets the images to RAW, there seems to be no differences between the two, and in at least one part of the image involving the Queen of Hearts the K5 appeared sharper by far than the K5 II.
Also, there are differences in color hues between the two. From the dpreview information supplied:

a. The K5 was tested under ACR 6.3 and the K5II under ACR 7.3
b. The K5 was tested at F9 and the K5II under F8

Considering the new Focus module for the K5 II and IIs compared with the K5, there are probably different focus areas between any 2 cameras.

We may be at a point where the differences between sensors is getting to be less and less, while the differences between handling and auxiliary features are the more important purchase considerations. There are always exceptions and i won't deny that.

Examples:
1. Noisy shutters - i hate them. At the last play rehearsal i shot, an actor asked me to confirm that all focus assist lights have been turned off (there were 3 of us shooting), all confirmation beeps had been turned off, and shutter noise turned off (can't do that on dslrs, usually ) The K5 and its successors (i assume) have quieter shutters than the D600 (i've read) and also my new Nex 5n. The K5's shutter sound has been described as a "butterfly landing", not sure the K5's sound is that poetic, but it certainly is quiet and legitimate purchase factor - unless one shoots on the sideline of an NFL football game, in which noise is irrelevant.

2. Weight and size. I find it much nicer to carry around my Nex5n for casual shooting than my K5 and lenses. But when i need the handling and the lenses of the K5, it far excels over the Nex.

3. Water and temperature resistance. I unknowlingly set my cell phone on a coffee table that had some condensation left on it from an iced glass. It died. Last winter, i snowshoed with my K5 stuffed in my parka under very cold, snowy conditions. Have also used it in several rain storms. I doubt my Nex would fair as well.

4. Menus and the ability to set operating parameters for the camera to self guide its shooting. My K5 far excels over my Nex5n, with features like the TAV. When one is shooting 2 hours of a play rehearsal and always concentrating on action on stage - its no time for automatic features to lead the camera into too slow shutters, excessive noisy iso, or too shallow dof, while the operator is unknowingly assuming the initial parameters are still in effect.

etc. After a lot of comparing, i decided to restrict my buying to a new printer and a heavily discounted Nex 5n this year; i'll wait another year to see what compelling progress is made with features - vice sensors. As to the Nex 5n, i know it has its limitations like any camera, but there is something really fun about being able to stab your finger at the LCD and say: FOCUS THERE, and it does it.

[stevebrot]

I compared it to the D600 D800 and 5DIII and 60D 7D and D3200 a NEX 7 and a FUji X Pro 1. You just have to ask, does anyone make a bad camera these days...

...and the answer is...No! Image quality is consistently high across brands for comparable-class cameras. As a result, purchase decisions are based on ergonomics, balance, build, feature set, and available optics.


Steve

[NVSteve]

As to the Nex 5n, i know it has its limitations like any camera, but there is something really fun about being able to stab your finger at the LCD and say: FOCUS THERE, and it does it.

I had the 5n for about 6 months before selling it. Great little camera. I'm following the price on it now and may pick it up again once it gets into the $300 range. I took mine skiing (downhill only-I used my weather resistant Oly DSLR for backcountry skiing) all last season and it seems to have worked just fine. I kept it in an outer jacket pocket, pulled it out to shoot a few, then put it back. Never had any condensation problems, but it is pretty dry out here. 3 things really annoyed me with it, but may not matter to others: 1) battery life simply sucks, 2) not a fan of the lenses, and 3) I could never see the LCD while out in the sun, which meant I just pointed the camera and guessed most of the time. Still, it is a great size for pockets & it has that fantastic Sony sensor. I know the 6 would fill my needs better, but if I can get the 5n for next to nothing, I will.

Back to what Norm posted, I found myself scratching my head at some of the examples. I have yet to see any signs of moire on my D600, which may or may not be a good thing. If I haven't seen it yet, then that should mean that the IIs will be fine for me and what I tend to photograph. I'll have to see if I can invoke some moire deliberately when I get a chance.

[liquid0]

Attachment 147093



As I see it:

• K-5 II vs K-5 IIs: The K-5 IIs does not really show more detail (more micro-contrast, but not significantly more detail) but a lot more false colour. The K-5 II shot didn't receive more capture sharpening (as it should have) but looks already very good in comparison.
  
• K-5 IIs vs D600: The D600 cleary shows more detail but without the artefacts of the K-5 IIs.

This comparison shows more false colour from the K-5IIs, this time creating moiré.
Attachment 147095

Interestingly, the K-5 II JPG is bigger, suggesting that it records more detail?!
Due to the JPG compression algorithm, a file will be the bigger, the more fine detail needs to be preserved.

This time, I took the liberty and capture sharpened the K-5 image to restore the micro-contrast that the AA-filter compromised.

I like the way the red is captured with theK5 IIs over the Nikon 600D, but the words on the Nikon 600D seem to be more legible.

[curlednoodles]

To me the K-5 IIs looks quite a bit better than the K-5. Check the fine detail the hair of the monotone line drawings above Mickey. You might want to increase your browser magnification to see it, but the difference is clear.

For me, i rank it as K5IIs then the K-30 then the K5

Comparison

Comparison 2

---

Last edited by curlednoodles; 11-21-2012 at 02:01 AM. Reason: added link

[Pål Jensen]

...and the answer is...No! Image quality is consistently high across brands for comparable-class cameras. As a result, purchase decisions are based on ergonomics, balance, build, feature set, and available optics.


Steve

The differences are so small they are meaningless. Lens, technique and post processing will have more impact on final quality than these minute differences.
For an FF camera I would want at least 36mp....