[audiobomber]

Yeah - I never thought about it until this thread. For example, the bug eye in one of the pictures listed above. I highly suspect that at full resolution, there isn't moire. It's the downsizing and viewing medium.

Yes, I've noticed that downsizing makes it worse.
I don't see moire on the NEX lens with my home laptop, but I do on my work laptop.
Does printing always show moire just because it shows up on your computer?

[JinDesu]

Yes, I've noticed that downsizing makes it worse. I don't see moire on the NEX lens with my home laptop, but I do on my work laptop. Does printing always show moire just because it shows up on your computer?

That I have no idea - I could try sending a print to the printer... I think I have a normal laser printer (but not sure, I don't use it).

Just tested. No moire, but no detail either (and my printer is inkjet).

[fuent104]

*Kodak was unsurprisingly late to the game

What are you basing this on? Kodak has a well known history of not only researching digital technologies, but also producing early (early 1990's, I think) professional digital slr systems in conjunction with Nikon. If I remember correctly, they also had some sort of collaboration with Pentax.

[Digitalis]

hat are you basing this on? Kodak has a well known history of not only researching digital technologies, but also producing early (early 1990's, I think) professional digital slr systems in conjunction with Nikon

Yes Kodak did have a hand in rise of consumer digital photography, Hasselblad in conjunction with Kodak was involved in digital imaging research as early as 1978 - the idea was to have it used in future space exploration however a considerable amount of that research had to be either mothballed or put to other uses since the challenger disaster. There are radiation and cosmic ray hazards in space and Digital was considered to be Ideal technology for producing high quality images in such hostile environments, film was vulnerable to being affected by exposure to those hazards.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 10-26-2012 at 01:34 AM.

[kh1234567890]

Actually when I enlarge it the moire gets quite a bit worse....at least on my work computers monitor. At home moire on the small image is barely there, and enlarged its perfect. But I totally get what your saying, as your also introducing a another variable in what can cause moire. The pixel resolution of ones monitor.

You are just seeing effects of the typical web browser cr*p downscaling algorithms, designed for speed, not accuracy. Open up the original image in something decent, such as FastStone with Lanczos3 smoothing turned on, and moire does not appear at any magnification.

And as for whether the K5IIs is worth having - there could be something in it - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/201734-k5iis-worth...ml#post2140464

[RobG]

This thread is interesting, although personally I find the collection of K5iis images on Flickr more useful. I accept that there's good technical reasons to use a filter, but I'm seeing very little evidence of aliasing in the photos on flickr. In fact I've only noticed one image of the interior of the conference centre in Tokyo which shows obvious aliasing, although I'd love to see the same photo taken with the K5ii, because I would expect that wall pattern to produce some sort of aliasing on any digital camera. From the evidence I've seen so far, the K5iis produces noticeably sharper images with very little risk of aliasing in real world circumstances. I wouldn't choose it if I was a fashion photographer - or if I did, I'd want to be very careful if the fabrics involved in a shoot might cause issues. Presumably there's won't be much else between the K5ii and K5iis other than the difference made by the filter. At the moment, despite the risks, the K5iis looks worth it to me.

[Adam]

After using the IIs for a day: yes, it's worth the risk, because you really don't have much to loose it seems. With that said, the IIs doesn't deliver what any flagship ought to have: speed.

In any case, regarding the concern raised in this thread. People have said that they're more concerned about moire on the K-5 IIs than on the D800E. However, considering that the pixel density on the D800E is about 10% greater, wouldn't that mean that it would be more susceptible to moire than the K-5 IIs?

After trying to get moire to ruin my photos for about an hour, here's the worst I saw:



Honestly, I think people are making much too big of an issue of this than it really should be. Most of the time, aliasing you see is just caused by the low resolution of the LCD when zoomed out.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Class A]

However, considering that the pixel density on the D800E is about 10% greater, wouldn't that mean that it would be more susceptible to moire than the K-5 IIs?

No, on the contrary. The higher the pixel density, the higher the spatial frequencies that can excite moiré need to be, i.e., the less likely moiré is to occur.

Honestly, I think people are making much too big of an issue of this than it really should be.

I respect your personal opinion, but given that you only have the experience of one hour, I doubt it is a very informed one.

There really is no need for empirical testing. If you don't get moiré (or other artefacts) with a K-5 IIs it really means just that

• there is no detail fine enough in the scene, and/or
• for one (or more) of many reasons (see my OP), you are not making an image that is sharp at pixel-level.

For the above situations, the K-5 IIs is the right choice.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[Class A]

Really?

Yes, really.

The higher the spatial frequency, the less the chance that it will occur in a natural scene. There aren't too many people around holding up a chess board in 200m distance while you are happening to focus at this distance.

Seriously, video cameras with 2MP have a lot of moiré problems. Medium format cameras have a comparatively small moiré problem. The D800 has less of a problem than the K-5, etc.

Moreover, the imaging system has natural optical low pass filters such as lens aberrations at large apertures and diffraction (at all apertures but the smaller they are, they higher the effect). Given sufficient MP, the lens alone will remove any chance of moiré of appearing.

If you actually do get moiré (or other artefacts) with a K-5 IIs it really means just that

• you have chosen a special subject which has very even, repeating structures / patterns, which coincidentally happen to be in exactly the detail level which interferes with the pixels
• you have not realized this (understood the scene) before the shoot and adjusted your parameters accordingly, similar to not realizing you have flare risk because of the sun in the frame or clipping risk because you put a bright grey sky into the frame.

I never claimed that cameras like the K-5 IIs are unusable, However, as Falk (falconeye) already wrote from experience, it is not straightforward to predict moiré, i.e., it can be hard to provoke if you try and it can rear its ugly head when you didn't expect it.

Look, I never meant to convince everyone that cameras without an AA-filter are evil. I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to all the "dramatically improved resolution with negligible risk"-hype that surrounds the K-5 IIs. The K-5 IIs can be a great choice for many, it just should be chosen with the full knowledge of all consequences.

[Parallax]

I respect your personal opinion, but given that you only have the experience of one hour, I doubt it is a very informed one.

Well, it's one hour more informed than the other opinions/claims in this thread.

[ironlionzion]

Really? Why do people use sensors with higher pixel densities? Maybe to resolve more? If you actually manage to "resolve more" your "spatial frequencies" on fitting patterns are high enough and will create moire just the same. And they will create moire in areas where sensors with less pixel density will not have shown any (since they didn't resolve the detail) while not showing moire where the other one does.

Moire is simply the sensor trying to resolve detail about as fine as a single pixel. The more pixels you have packed into a sensor, the finer the details you can show without producing moire. In other words, it takes finer and finer detail to produce moire when you push pixel density up.

higher pixel density will just move the moire to an area of the subject which is farther away.

This is an example of how higher pixel density reduces moire! Technically, moire isn't being produced because the subject is farther, it's produced because the greater distance causes the subject to become smaller.

A higher pixel camera, assuming a high resolving lens, will always show moire at finer details than a lower pixel camera. I'd rather have moire on some of the finer, smaller, details than the more apparent larger details.

[ironlionzion]

If you actually do get moiré (or other artefacts) with a K-5 IIs it really means just that you have chosen a special subject which has very even, repeating structures / patterns, which coincidentally happen to be in exactly the detail level which interferes with the pixels

Exactly. Which is why the higher pixel density of your sensor, the finer the detail level needs to be to interfere with the pixels.

[RobG]

Honestly, I think people are making much too big of an issue of this than it really should be. Most of the time, aliasing you see is just caused by the low resolution of the LCD when zoomed out.

I hope Pentax is expecting this reaction to the K5iis in terms of their production numbers, Adam - I wonder how many of the K5ii they will sell?

[normhead]

Pentax has already said they ave way more pre-orders than they expected, but I'm not sure they ever tell how many they sell of anything.