[slip]

No chance in hell that the background would distract me here
I can't even see it until close up, and it could be mistaken for part of the background by some people.
Just a thought

Thanks

Randy

[KB1SFVE3]

Yikes!

I'm becoming ever more convinced that digital camera technology has now arrived at the point where many of the so-called "improvements" to these new DSLRs are more often than not in the form of added "bells and whistles". That is, they add to the perception of user convenience, but in reality do precious little to improve one's overall ability to contribute to the advancement of their photographic art.

In this instance, this is a clear case where it's actually become a detriment.

Indeed, there is a disease associated with all this nonsense. It's called "feature creep"....the continual addition of so-called "features" to things that may look great in the camera store or magazine reviews but that few, if any of us, end up ever really using, let alone needing.

My hunch is that the gurus at Pentax can't make up their minds which direction they want to follow going forward. However, because market pressures dictated that they needed to bring out SOMETHING new for the big fall camera shows...they elected for "improvements" (i.e "added features") to an already fully developed camera design just to (in their minds) keep up with the competition.

This, in turn, leads me to believe that while all the "bells and whistles" on these newer DSLRs may be "nice to have"...without a SIGNIFICANT change in the underlying sensor technology (which, let's face it, the K-5IIs really isn't) sometimes these so-called "features" simply aren't worth the added cost. More often than not, they just get in the way.

In this case, it appears that what's been done to the K-5 is hardly an "improvement", particularly if you are shooting near man-made objects indoors.

Glad I didn't buy one.

[Ikarus]

I can't even see it until close up, and it could be mistaken for part of the background by some people.

Are you serious? It's very obvious to me between the third and fourth head from the right, even without close-up and that's on a 12.5 inch laptop screen.

[Racer X 69]

Nice moire, but now for the important question... What planet are those women from and how long does it take to get there?

The planet Moire, and, depending on what ship you take, about 2.5 to 1.6 light years.

[audiobomber]

Yikes!

I'm becoming ever more convinced that digital camera technology has now arrived at the point where many of the so-called "improvements" to these new DSLRs are more often than not in the form of added "bells and whistles". That is, they add to the perception of user convenience, but in reality do precious little to improve one's overall ability to contribute to the advancement of their photographic art.

In this instance, this is a clear case where it's actually become a detriment.

No AA filter is an option. For anyone who wants less chance of moire, there's the K-5 II, with AA filter. Some feel it is worthwhile to accept moire in a few more instances to have noticeably better resolution in the majority of photos. FujiFilm has been widely praised for removing the AA filter in their new MILCs. Ricoh doesn't use an AA filter for it's M-mount module. It makes sense that Pentax join this trend. The great thing that Pentax did though, is to offer a choice; K-5 II or K-5 IIs. You can't order an X-Pro 1 or Ricoh M-mount with AA filter.

My hunch is that the gurus at Pentax can't make up their minds which direction they want to follow going forward. However, because market pressures dictated that they needed to bring out SOMETHING new for the big fall camera shows...they elected for "improvements" (i.e "added features") to an already fully developed camera design just to (in their minds) keep up with the competition.

I agree that feature creep is a disturbing trend, but I don't see feature creep as the reason for a redesign of the K-5. The new bodies have improved auto-focus in low light, coloured light & with wide aperture lenses, and improved tracking. The K-5's AF performance has been criticized by many owners and is often highlighted in reviews as being behind the competition. Fast and reliable auto-focus is a necessity in modern DSLR's and Pentax needed this improvement.

[Eulogy]

I must say...it doesn't really look half bad. You sure that the board wasn't merely oily, and causing strange reflections? That's really all it looks like to me.

[Eric Auer]

Yikes!

I'm becoming ever more convinced that digital camera technology has now arrived at the point where many of the so-called "improvements" to these new DSLRs are more often than not in the form of added "bells and whistles". That is, they add to the perception of user convenience, but in reality do precious little to improve one's overall ability to contribute to the advancement of their photographic art.

In this instance, this is a clear case where it's actually become a detriment.

Indeed, there is a disease associated with all this nonsense. It's called "feature creep"....the continual addition of so-called "features" to things that may look great in the camera store or magazine reviews but that few, if any of us, end up ever really using, let alone needing.

My hunch is that the gurus at Pentax can't make up their minds which direction they want to follow going forward. However, because market pressures dictated that they needed to bring out SOMETHING new for the big fall camera shows...they elected for "improvements" (i.e "added features") to an already fully developed camera design just to (in their minds) keep up with the competition.

This, in turn, leads me to believe that while all the "bells and whistles" on these newer DSLRs may be "nice to have"...without a SIGNIFICANT change in the underlying sensor technology (which, let's face it, the K-5IIs really isn't) sometimes these so-called "features" simply aren't worth the added cost. More often than not, they just get in the way.

In this case, it appears that what's been done to the K-5 is hardly an "improvement", particularly if you are shooting near man-made objects indoors.

Glad I didn't buy one.

What "Features" were added to the K-5 IIs?

And btw the IIs is remarkably sharp with great low light performance. With no added "Bells and Whistles"

I have yet to experience any Moire at all, So for what I'm doing, No issues.

Bah Humbug...

[KB1SFVE3]

What "Features" were added to the K-5 IIs?

Actually, a more correct observation would be what "features" have been taken away. The filtering that's supposed to prevent this stuff was removed.

And btw the IIs is remarkably sharp with great low light performance. With no added "Bells and Whistles"

Perhaps.

But, personally, I wouldn't buy a camera with such a built in "compromise", particularly one hyped as "new and improved". For many years, filtering was put in these cameras for a purpose...to prevent this nonsense from happening. And while I agree that the photo in the initial post shows a "sharper" picture ....that "sharpness" also quickly draws your eye to the flaw.

That is, of course, AFTER you look at the sightly women!

I have yet to experience any Moire at all, So for what I'm doing, No issues. Bah Humbug...

To each his own.

As I see it, the K5IIs is a feeble excuse for Pentax marketers to continue foisting a largely older technology camera on the public until they make up their minds what they really want to do with their DSLR lineup going forward. Once they do that (and come out with a REALLY revolutionary design) my hunch is that the K-5IIs will eventually prove to be a less-than-popular "orphan"...and a rather expensive one at that!

Indeed, sometimes, "better" is the enemy of "good enough".

Keith

[Eric Auer]

I dont know what "really revolutionary" you are waiting for........But I dont wait around, I buy and use what serves me in the here and now. Life is too short to hang around waiting for the next great thing.

[KB1SFVE3]

I dont know what "really revolutionary" you are waiting for........But I dont wait around, I buy and use what serves me in the here and now. Life is too short to hang around waiting for the next great thing.

Certainly, buying "what serves in the here and now"...especially if it's "new"....is what keeps many of these camera companies (including Pentax) solvent.

I just don't happen to be one of those folks who immediately jump on the bandwagon to buy everything that's "new" when it first appears on the market.

In fact, from my over 40 years as both a photographer and an amateur (ham) radio operator, I've learned that, in this day and age, a "new" design is often replete with flaws which results in sending the unit back to the factory for warranty work...often while the factory techs are still scratching their collective heads for a way to correct the problem.

In that sense, those who leap on the bandwagon to immediately buy the "latest and greatest" often end up being little more than company Beta testers. And, if I may borrow your phrase, in my humble opinion, "Life is too short to be a Beta tester".

These days, my approach to purchasing both Ham Radio equipment AND photographic equipment is to WAIT a year or so after something "new" is released until the builders work out all the rest of the bugs in their latest brainchild.

THEN I might be tempted to buy one "new in the box"..often while saving a whole bunch of money in the process.

Keith

[mikemike]

Certainly, buying "what serves in the here and now"...especially if it's "new"....is what keeps many of these camera companies (including Pentax) solvent.

I just don't happen to be one of those folks who immediately jump on the bandwagon to buy everything that's "new" when it first appears on the market.

In fact, from my over 40 years as both a photographer and an amateur (ham) radio operator, I've learned that, in this day and age, a "new" design is often replete with flaws which results in sending the unit back to the factory for warranty work...often while the factory techs are still scratching their collective heads for a way to correct the problem.

In that sense, those who leap on the bandwagon to immediately buy the "latest and greatest" often end up being little more than company Beta testers. And, if I may borrow your phrase, in my humble opinion, "Life is too short to be a Beta tester".

These days, my approach to purchasing both Ham Radio equipment AND photographic equipment is to WAIT a year or so after something "new" is released until the builders work out all the rest of the bugs in their latest brainchild.

THEN I might be tempted to buy one "new in the box"..often while saving a whole bunch of money in the process.

Keith

They did release the K5 II with the AA filter still on it, the S is an option. I think that if you look at Pentax's releases, they take a fairly conservative approach to technology they put into their top of the line cameras first releasing major overhauls on their lower end cameras then they don't (usually) put them into the top of the line until they have worked the kinks out. I am thinking about the switch to Sony sensors and crazy low light performance with the K-X, the change to the AF system that took place with the K-r (and introduced the tungsten bug hence the "usually" qualification above), the revamped CDAF in K-01, and the integration of that CDAF with a DSLR in the K-30.

[Alizarine]

I think that if you look at Pentax's releases, they take a fairly conservative approach to technology they put into their top of the line cameras first releasing major overhauls on their lower end cameras then they don't (usually) put them into the top of the line until they have worked the kinks out.

Putting that into concept, this makes me think the K-5 II and IIs is the testbed of the SAFOX X for a higher model coming up soon

btw, I'm not regretting getting a IIs than a K-5 Classic - SAFOX X in itself is worth it all. The screen is a good help too, I can now view photos in broad daylight... light years away from the screen on my K-x.

[LFLee]

Yikes!

In this case, it appears that what's been done to the K-5 is hardly an "improvement", particularly if you are shooting near man-made objects indoors.

Glad I didn't buy one.

You won't be saying that if you actually try one.

Removing the filter (& in camera moire removal) will be the direction Pentax going. The improvement in image quality in the IIs version is really impressive.

[kaiserz]

Well yes... good thing I shot in RAW. However, considering the number of shots I took at this photowall... I'm afraid I'd have to go home very late tonight. Plenty to PP...

Bro, I don't know what's happening in your thread right now but, I was wondering what the other "Photogs" has captured? is there a way for you to take a look? Cause I also want to get the k5IIs and I'm really considering it right now. I'm thinking that there is a really big possibility that, that wall is like a moire wall or something, that even other cameras will get it if they shoot at it. cause the shirt which i think is very much more prone to moire didn't get it.

Cheers,
A

[Sandy Hancock]

You won't be saying that if you actually try one

In the couple of months I have had my K-5 IIs, problematic moire has been rare: maybe a handful of shots (all of the same tulle shirt worn by Butterfly Boucher at the Gorgeous Festival) in several thousand. In the same time with my K-5 (which I now use much less) I have also found it a couple of times.

On the other hand, the improvements in resolution, chromatic aberration and autofocus performance are, as FLFee says, really impressive. I will not be parting with my K-5 IIs in the foreseeable future.