[Bramela]

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.

You don't mention what model/brand you are using. That might explain a lot.

[audiobomber]

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.

The wall would probably not have shown moire if the focus was on the people instead of the wall. Moire is only going to appear in areas of optimum sharpness.

[Alizarine]

The wall probably would probably not have shown moire if the focus was on the people instead of the wall. Moire is only going to appear in areas of optimum sharpness.

I think that's a good point.

Here's another image at the same wall, same cam, same lens:



as you can see there is a small amount of luminance moire (upper right corner, those seeming wave patterns)
but no more color moire - I think the earlier photo was the result of the camera mistaking AF, or me accidentally pressing the shutter before the focus actually locked (I had to.. well, snap as many as I could)

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.

I want to try how Noise Ninja can fix the resulting noise for turning off NR up to ISO1600. So much detaaaiil

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.

I'll ask if I could get a peek from others' albums (press people)... if they'll let me. But big chance that they won't.

[Ikarus]

Removing the filter (& in camera moire removal) will be the direction Pentax going.

I don't think we're quite there yet. Aliasing causes irreversible loss of information. It cannot be fixed after the fact, it can only be patched up, but since matters of taste come into play for that, this cannot really be done automatically in the camera without human intervention. No, the AA filter is here to stay for a while, at least as long as the pixel density on the sensor is not high enough so that the lens itself acts as an AA filter. I don't know what that number will be, but 16 megapixel on APS-C certainly doesn't cut the mustard, as the K-5 IIs clearly demonstrates.

---

Last edited by Ikarus; 01-13-2013 at 12:36 AM.

[Alizarine]

Here's a cropped 100% sample when the focus got it right on the same wall: (another picture) :P



No moire on the wall, and all that detail... have to PP that. (no NR, ISO 500, Tamron 17-50 at f3.2, 1/80)

[Eric Auer]

I don't think we're quite there yet. Aliasing causes irreversible loss of information. It cannot be fixed after the fact, it can only be patched up, but since matters of taste come into play for that, this cannot really be done automatically in the camera without human intervention. No, the AA filter is here to stay for a while, at least as long as the pixel density on the sensor is not high enough so that the lens itself acts as an AA filter. I don't know what that number will be, but 16 megapixel on APS-C certainly doesn't cut the mustard, as the K-5 IIs clearly demonstrates.

Allrite, It's late, I had a few drinks but what exactly are you saying here? Where does the IIs lack? Pastrami sandwich?

[KB1SFVE3]

You don't mention what model/brand you are using. That might explain a lot.

See below:

[KB1SFVE3]

I don't think we're quite there yet. Aliasing causes irreversible loss of information. It cannot be fixed after the fact, it can only be patched up, but since matters of taste come into play for that, this cannot really be done automatically in the camera without human intervention. No, the AA filter is here to stay for a while, at least as long as the pixel density on the sensor is not high enough so that the lens itself acts as an AA filter. I don't know what that number will be, but 16 megapixel on APS-C certainly doesn't cut the mustard, as the K-5 IIs clearly demonstrates.

Bingo!

[Digitalis]

I don't think we're quite there yet. Aliasing causes irreversible loss of information. It cannot be fixed after the fact, it can only be patched up, but since matters of taste come into play for that, this cannot really be done automatically in the camera without human intervention. No, the AA filter is here to stay for a while, at least as long as the pixel density on the sensor is not high enough so that the lens itself acts as an AA filter. I don't know what that number will be, but 16 megapixel on APS-C certainly doesn't cut the mustard, as the K-5 IIs clearly demonstrates.

yes, when you use the K5IIs is a chance you will encounter moire - and it is easily dealt with by either using the lens at its widest aperture or by stopping the lens down past the diffraction limit. Sometimes just by holding the camera at a different angle can eliminate it - problem solved. The point is that when the lens is stopped down to the diffraction limit you don't have a bayer AA adding even more blur to the image, so a K5IIs image at f/16 will have recorded finer levels acutance than an image taken with the regular K5II at f/16 that has a bayer AA filter. Sharpening an image doesn't recover lost detail - it can only make the detail that is there in the image easier to see. With a filterless camera you are given a choice to maximise detail, or you can carefully reduce it to avoid moire and that is why I bought my K5IIs* - just because a camera has a Bayer AA filter in it doesn't in any way suggest that it is immune to moire - I have examples of moire in images taken by the Pentax K-7, and that camera has a rather strong filter.

* Being an owner of a Leica M8, M9,Leica Monochrom, Nikon D800E, Pentax 645D and having had extensive experience in working with the Leica S2, Phase One and Leaf Medium Format Digital backs - all of which as standard do not have Bayer AA filters (unless requested) I have considerable experience with working with cameras that do not have Bayer AA filters and I am pleased that pentax has given us that freedom of choice that we have with the K5II/K5IIs.

[creampuff]

Why is it that so many who never even own a K-5IIs can suddenly be "experts" on moire with the K-5IIs? I find it ironic that actual K-5IIs owners have reiterated plenty of times that moire doesn't appear as prevalent as commonly believed and for all intents and purposes isn't a problem. But apparently nay sayers and doubting thomases who have yet to even use a K-5IIs will still want to believe what they want to believe and remain close minded to the positives of the K-5IIs.

[Digitalis]

Why is it that so many who never even own a K-5IIs can suddenly be "experts" on moire with the K-5IIs?

Well these are open forums, where people are able to more or less speak their minds on certain subjects. In some cases the opinions of others are enlightened, well researched and properly articulated - but we have all encountered the unenlightened, factoid peppered drivel that leads to utterly misinformed ideas.

It's the internet after all, take it with a pinch of salt (unless you have hypertension)

[KB1SFVE3]

But apparently nay sayers and doubting thomases who have yet to even use a K-5IIs will still want to believe what they want to believe and remain close minded to the positives of the K-5IIs.

Indeed, just like the seemingly endless arguments between Ford, GM and Chrysler owners about which vehicle is best, so too, are these "arguments" among various model Pentax owners.

Clearly, the K-5IIs offers (as you say) many "positives". I know this to be true, because, contrary to the intimations of some folks posting here, I have, indeed, tried one.

But, it is also quite clear that those "positives" also come at the expense of an induced "issue". Whether (or not) those "positives" are worth dealing with the "issue" (or whether the "issue" eventually becomes a "problem") is an individual decision.

I certainly agree that if a particular camera does what you want it to do, and are willing to take your chances on a "new and improved" model (and, of course, are also willing to pay the $$$ to get it) then I say go for it.. For most of us, this is a hobby, not a profession.

On the other hand, I also believe each of us should have the right to share our personal opinions (informed or not) in this forum as to why we choose not purchase this or that particular model camera.

That is, I've found a good rule to follow in these online forums is to "Take it all in, but only swallow what fits".

[Ikarus]

Why is it that so many who never even own a K-5IIs can suddenly be "experts" on moire with the K-5IIs?

That's because whether aliasing comes into play for a given subject has very little to do with the K-5IIs in particular, but rather with the pixel density of any 16 megapixel sensor on APS-C vs. the resolution of the lens and the selected aperture. It's the laws of physics, so nothing to take personally.

[Eric Auer]

That's because whether aliasing comes into play for a given subject has very little to do with the K-5IIs in particular, but rather with the pixel density of any 16 megapixel sensor on APS-C vs. the resolution of the lens and the selected aperture. It's the laws of physics, so nothing to take personally.

I'd like to see your research paper on that, sounds great.

Nothing to take personally tho...

[Digitalis]

I'd like to see your research paper on that, sounds great.

Falk Lumo has already done an analysis on the K7 sensor that covers this.