[rawr]

FYI:

Pentax K-5 IIs maintains the excellence of its sister model the K-5 II

DxO has now reviewed and measurebated the K-5IIs.

Now the whole K-5 'family' has been dxomarked:



As DxO note:

The removal of the anti-aliasing filter on the K-5 IIs has made virtually no difference when compared to the DxO Mark Camera Sensor Ratings for its sister model the K-5 II.

[RonHendriks1966]

Basicly all the same sensors. Lucky us, a good one

[JohnBee]

FYI:

Pentax K-5 IIs maintains the excellence of its sister model the K-5 II

DxO has now reviewed and measurebated the K-5IIs.

Now the whole K-5 'family' has been dxomarked:

Attachment 150451

As DxO note:

I think one of the downfalls of DxOMark is where the scores don't necessarily reflect the overall potential of a camera. ie. the K-5 II may have a higher SNR score than the K-5 IIs based on the amount of noise. Whereas what the scores don't reflect however, is where the K-5 II would prove to have better high ISO performance in terms of detail preservation.

[rawr]

Basicly all the same sensors.

Yep. It's all down to the new AF system, the AA filterless option, the new rear LCD, and maybe other minor differences. Basic sensor performance confirmed as identical.

I was hoping the removal of the AA filter in the IIs would make some sensor difference - maybe to the low-light score - but that hasn't happened.

[rawr]

... what the scores don't reflect however, is where the K-5 II would prove to have better high ISO performance in terms of detail preservation.

I see where you are coming from. But the low-light score does reflect that, I think, inasmuch as a declining signal to noise ratio means detail is being eaten up by extra noise.

[JohnBee]

I see where you are coming from. But the low-light score does reflect that, I think, inasmuch as a declining signal to noise ratio means detail is being eaten up by extra noise.

I think I hear another case study coming on

[rawr]

I think I hear another case study coming on

Sounds good. I guess it is kind of implicit that signal degradation equals more noise, means less clear detail coming down the wire. But some visual testing of that presumption could indeed be interesting.

[Adam]

The one thing that DxO doesn't score is resolution, so that isn't factored in. But it still looks like we have 3 versions of the same camera, as the review found

[rawr]

But it still looks like we have 3 versions of the same camera, as the review found

Maybe 2013 will bring us a K-3 and K-4

[dms]

As I understand it they average (reduce/adjust) the resolution to (I believe) 8 MP in order to compare cameras--and the camera with the larger resolution gets a boost in signal to noise as a consequence (associated with reducing the resolution/averaging pixels)--but the resolution difference between the II and IIs is likely too small to be of import.

[calculator01]

By the looks of the camera pictures, they didn't even test a K-5 IIs

[Rnovo]

As I said in my previous post, my K5IIs images (amount of PP and final rendition) are much better than the ones from my K5 which is now my spare. Those tests are a gimmick just like opinion polls. Its what you think the result is (the shooter) and what others think of your images (the public).
What's the next topic?

[ogl]

I think one of the downfalls of DxOMark is where the scores don't necessarily reflect the overall potential of a camera. ie. the K-5 II may have a higher SNR score than the K-5 IIs based on the amount of noise. Whereas what the scores don't reflect however, is where the K-5 II would prove to have better high ISO performance in terms of detail preservation.

SNR18% - higher is better
ISO80
K-5II - 41.7 dB
K-5IIs - 42 dB

ISO 100
K-5II - 40.8 dB
K-5IIs - 41 dB

ISO200
K-5II - 38 dB
K-5IIs - 38.1 dB

ISO 400
K-5II - 35.1 dB
K-5IIs - 35.2 dB

ISO800
K-5II - 32 dB
K-5IIs - 32.2 dB

ISO1600
K-5II - 27.6 dB
K-5IIs - 27.7 dB


Let's compare ISO manufacturer / measured

ISO80
K-5II/K-5IIs - 68/70

ISO100
K-5II/K-5IIs - 85/91

ISO200
K-5II/K-5IIs - 179/173

ISO400
K-5II/K-5IIs - 360/347

ISO800
K-5II/K-5IIs - 744/723

ISO1600
K-5II/K-5IIs - 1514/1426

ISO3200
K-5II/K-5IIs - 2482/2877

ISO6400
K-5II/K-5IIs - 5145/5970

Rather strange situation with ISO - K-5IIs has closer to nominal ISO at 80-100 and 3200-6400 (and e t.c.)

[DSims]

As I said in my previous post, my K5IIs images (amount of PP and final rendition) are much better than the ones from my K5 which is now my spare. Those tests are a gimmick just like opinion polls. Its what you think the result is (the shooter) and what others think of your images (the public).
What's the next topic?

This is true - my situation is the same, and my K-5 is now my secondary body. Nevertheless, there are times I still like the K-5 output as much or better - especially in the case of some in-camera JPGs. But that's not enough to stop me from using the IIs as my primary camera, because it simply performs better overall.

[lightbulb]

Ok they are quite similar. Time to shoot photos; )