[audiobomber]

It's one thing to point out that DXOmark came up with a different conclusion, but I'd be careful about using them to contradict other forum members who have real world experience with the product.

Some forum members are knowledgeable, some speak nonsense. Being a forum member and using the camera does not make one an expert or infallible. Forum members contradict one another constantly, including on the point of K-5 vs. K-5 II noise handling. I read two Pentax forums daily, and I'm confident in saying that an opinion on there being a difference in SNR between a K-5 and K-5 IIs is a minority view. Just to be clear, we're talking about raw performance aren't we?

Pentax did not claim a noise advantage when they introduced the K-5 II. They mentioned other improvements. Wouldn't improved noise have been something to highlight? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/10/Pentax-Ricoh-announces-Pentax-K-5-II...s-filter#press

It's not the contradiction that bothers me so much - the forum can be a good place for a little healthy debate. And we all have limited experience, so we have to fill in the gaps some way. But DXOmark's tests are mostly cursory - and they're not a good way to fill in these gaps.

I disagree. DXOMark sensor tests are well respected from anything I've seen, and make sense to me, provided one looks at what they are testing. I don't like their lens tests, but for sensors, IMO, they are the best by far. If you have some way to demonstrate that they're wrong about their sensor measurements, I'd like to see it.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 01-30-2014 at 08:30 PM.

[OldNoob]

buy the k-5IIs , sell the k-5, buy a new lens. "Problem Solvid"

[DSims]

I disagree. DXOMark sensor tests are well respected from anything I've seen, and make sense to me, provided one looks at what they are testing. I don't like their lens tests, but for sensors, IMO, they are the best by far. If you have some way to demonstrate that they're wrong about their sensor measurements, I'd like to see it.

How about DXO's very own partner, DPR?

Pentax K-5 II and K-5 II S: Digital Photography Review

Compare the RAW samples at 6400 ISO and higher. Heck, you don't even have to move from the default location on the studio photo. It's not a full stop of difference; perhaps half a stop. But it's visible, and it gets more prominent as you turn the ISO up.

Furthermore, as you can imagine, RAW editing software can do a better job of cleaning up pixels that haven't been pre-blurred. So you get less noise without even applying NR, and even better results if you do.

[audiobomber]

Compare the RAW samples at 6400 ISO and higher. Heck, you don't even have to move from the default location on the studio photo. It's not a full stop of difference; perhaps half a stop. But it's visible, and it gets more prominent as you turn the ISO up.

You're confusing noise and resolution. The sensor and electronics are the same, therefore the noise is the same. I see what you mean though; since the K-5 IIs has higher resolution, you can add more NR and still retain detail.

[DSims]

You're confusing noise and resolution. The sensor and electronics are the same, therefore the noise is the same.

When I was younger, I used to hear stuff like this a lot from other kids: "the sensor's exactly the same, except it isn't!"

I always got a kick out of this phrase!

I see what you mean though; since the K-5 IIs has higher resolution, you can add more NR and still retain detail.

Good. But don't forget, like sholtzma said, you don't need as much NR.

[Hattifnatt]

So this means I should go for the K5IIs?

[audiobomber]

When I was younger, I used to hear stuff like this a lot from other kids: "the sensor's exactly the same, except it isn't!"

The sensor is exactly the same. The AA filter is the different, which is a separate part of the camera and does not contribute to noise.

Good. But don't forget, like sholtzma said, you don't need as much NR.

I disagree, because noise is the same. I'm saying that you can add more NR and end up with the same amount of detail.

Also note that you have not proved DXO's noise measurement wrong. The IIs has higher resolution than a K-5 II, at base ISO and everywhere else. Noise is the same because the sensor and electronics are the same, which is what DXO measures and reports on.

[audiobomber]

So this means I should go for the K5IIs?

I'm not a K-5 fan because of the wonky auto-focus. The K-5 II & IIs have improved AF, especially in low light. The difference between the II and IIs that the IIs has higher resolution, but also more likely to show moiré. You have to decide whether that's a concern for you.

I wouldn't buy any Pentax right now though, because of the rumours of new body announcements at the CP+ show.

[DSims]

The sensor is exactly the same. The AA filter is the different, which is a separate part of the camera and does not contribute to noise.

Thanks for making me laugh again. The Low Pass Filter comes as part of the sensor. When you manufacture one without it, the senor's no longer the same. That's the whole point of the K-5 IIs.

In fact this may well be the reason the color rendition is different with the IIs - because it's the same electronics using a different sensor.

I disagree, because noise is the same. I'm saying that you can add more NR and end up with the same amount of detail.

Also note that you have not proved DXO's noise measurement wrong. The IIs has higher resolution than a K-5 II, at base ISO and everywhere else. Noise is the same because the sensor and electronics are the same, which is what DXO measures and reports on.

Did you look at the studio scene at ISO 51200? Did you notice there's slightly more visible noise with the K-5 II, and the K-5 is even noisier than that?

The K-5 and K-5 II are supposed to have the same sensor, and the IIs has a modified version of that sensor. Yet they all show a different amount of noise. Many of us have noticed the difference in everyday use (without necessarily looking for it) because we're going from the K-5 to the K-5 IIs, the combination which exhibits the biggest gap in noise performance among the three.

[audiobomber]

Thanks for making me laugh again. The Low Pass Filter comes as part of the sensor. When you manufacture one without it, the senor's no longer the same. That's the whole point of the K-5 IIs.

A blur filter is just a sheet of crystal placed in front of the sensor. It is not part of the sensor and has no effect on noise. Noise in the signal is generated in the sensor and the electronic circuitry only.



There are many reasons a K-5 and K-5 II image may be different, while using the same sensor, for example different ancillary electronics, different levels of non-defeatable noise reduction, different processing algorithms. The II and IIs have different resolution, same sensor. No other explanation makes sense.

I'm wasting my time here. See you around.

[sholtzma]

So this means I should go for the K5IIs?

May I suggest a possible course of action? Rent a K-5iis for a week, and compare for yourself the high ISO performance (AF and noise). See if there is any difference you notice or care about? If there is, go for the K-5iis. If not, get yourself a good lens. And, by the way, depending on the lens choice, you might be able to rent that too before you decide to buy.

Let us know what you decide to do and what the results are.

[peterjcb]

Similar decision that I had to make recently....I had a defective K-3 with the 135mm lens kit and sent it back to Amazon.
Instead of repurchasing another K-3, I decided to buy an used K-5 in excellent condition with low clicks and invest in some Limited Lenses with the extra money. I'll get a K-3 in a year or two when the next latest greatest version comes out.

[abacus07]

The math isn't really adding up for this question.

The new lens costs $900 while you could get $150 selling the DA35/2.4. $750 cost
The new camera costs $800 while you could get $500ish for a used K5. $300 cost

Perhaps to make this an equivalent we should be talking about upgrading to the K-3.

My two cents is that I would prefer to have the lens instead of a K5iis and upgrade to the K-3 or the next generation camera later.

[DSims]

A blur filter is just a sheet of crystal placed in front of the sensor. It is not part of the sensor and has no effect on noise. Noise in the signal is generated in the sensor and the electronic circuitry only.

There are many reasons a K-5 and K-5 II image may be different, while using the same sensor, for example different ancillary electronics, different levels of non-defeatable noise reduction, different processing algorithms. The II and IIs have different resolution, same sensor. No other explanation makes sense.

I'm wasting my time here. See you around.

Let me summarize here. 3 people (and nearly a 4th) said there was no difference in noise between the K-5 and K-5 IIs. None of them has ever gone from the K-5 to the K-5 IIs, and only one of them even owns a K-5 IIs.

The two people who have owned both said they noticed lower noise with the K-5 IIs. Because Pentax never advertised this feature, they were both surprised to learn this, but discovered it nevertheless. However, because their discovery doesn't align with mainstream belief, they were chastised for mentioning it.

The difference can be seen simply by looking at the RAW studio shots on DPR. Each buyer needs to decide whether that difference is enough to matter to him. I'm not sure it is by itself, but altogether with the other improvements the K-5 IIs is a satisfying upgrade. I still have my K-5, but I'll always reach for my IIs first.

So this means I should go for the K5IIs?

Actually, I think you should. I'm just not sure you should do it before you update your lens kit. But if these limitations are really bugging you, you could get the camera first.

But I'd take care of the lenses first, because I spent at least 5 to 7 times the price of my K-x (which I paid full original price for) on lenses before I upgraded to the K-5. While I thought some might find it strange how much I spent on lenses for a K-x, I never thought it strange because my images got so much better. And then they barely improved when I finally spent all that money on a new K-5, because all the "IQ power" was in the lenses.

[Serpiente]

Sell your K-5 and DA 35 + 18-55 and buy the K-5IIs (or K5II) and Sigma 35 F1.4 A