[djc737]

While I find the 2s very intriguing, I do not see it as a better street camera as they tend to be people doing such and such and the such and such is more important than the crispness of the image. So for me the K-5 will still be my street cam.
Where the 2s should show it's colors and crispness is out in nature. I guess architecture also. While i am happy with my mid to tele lenses from Pentax, the wides are not, IMHO, anything to rave about, yes the 15 has very nice bokeh but getting the whole scene actually in focus is not it's strength. The 21 just never really did it for me as a FL. I have a Panasonic 7-14 which is just amazing for it's size and weight. Yes, some correction is done in camera but even so, it wipes my DA 15 off the floor in clarity. So I get the 2s to have maybe comparable IQ as a smaller sensor. I think not. What wide angle lens would really show off the higher resolution of the 2s to make it really worth the purchase. I am also eying the Sigma DP1M as a replacement for my wide angle primes. Both of the DPxMs have such outstanding IQ but it is the matching of the sensor to the lens that gives the highly regarded results. So we get this AA-less APC sensor but do we have a lens that can really show it's capabilities to the best.
I welcome your thought and suggestions of possible alternatives for the wide end.

[Adam]

I would think that ultra-wide lenses for APS-C don't have the kind of resolution needed to expose the impact that an AA-less sensor has. Generally speaking, you need to blow up an image to see the difference, and if you don't plan on doing that I don't think the IIs will made much of a difference.

Could be wrong, though, but that's the impression I got from using the 645D with wide lenses. You won't truly start appreciating its sharpness until you take some close-ups!

[westmill]

I wonder if Pentax has a new editing program that comes with the 2s. It seems from what Ive read so far that none of the third party editors work very well with AA less sensors. Ive not heard anything about the D800e, so I dont know if there is a problem there. Its certainly a problem with the Fujis though. Luckily the fuji outputs superb JPGs. Its certainly going to be interesting.

[ironlionzion]

Fuji uses a different type of sensor that arranges the color pixels in a random pattern, then uses some intense algorithms to sort the data back together. For pentax and nikon, it's just a regular sensor without the AA, so the third party editors will work exactly the same on the AA-less sensors do with their AA sensor counterparts

[westmill]

Fuji uses a different type of sensor that arranges the color pixels in a random pattern, then uses some intense algorithms to sort the data back together. For pentax and nikon, it's just a regular sensor without the AA, so the third party editors will work exactly the same on the AA-less sensors do with their AA sensor counterparts

Thanks for that ! Good to know That would explain why no complaints about the Nikon. It has been in the back of my mind for a while.

[rvannatta]

I would think that ultra-wide lenses for APS-C don't have the kind of resolution needed to expose the impact that an AA-less sensor has. Generally speaking, you need to blow up an image to see the difference, and if you don't plan on doing that I don't think the IIs will made much of a difference.

Could be wrong, though, but that's the impression I got from using the 645D with wide lenses. You won't truly start appreciating its sharpness until you take some close-ups!

The descriptions of both of these 'new' cameras spoke of lens correction for lateral Chromatic aberration being available for all FA lenses.
If so this is a change from earlier models that supported corrections only for the LTD. subset of FA lenses. Assuming that I haven't read
in to the press release something that isn't so, this should make, I would think, some improvements in fast FA wides--with the FA* 24-f/2 coming to mind.

If we can get the lens corrections, perhaps the 2s will provide better photos in lieu of sharp aberrations.

[interested_observer]

I do quite a bit of wide angle imaging. I have learned a number of things via the School of Hard Knocks, that have been demonstrated here on the Forum. I have posted parts of this story before, but the bottom line, is that the wider you go in terms of focal length, the more area each pixel has to represent, and therefore the less sharp the resulting image is going to be. I learned this lesson with the 12-24 which is wonderful, and sharp. I acquired the 31 Ltd and was comparing the two. I had the instant realization that the 12-24 was good, but the 31Ltd was at least an order of magnitude better. It just was not the fine optics of the 31Ltd, but a large contributor was the area that each pixel represented. With the 31, each pixel represented a substantially smaller area than the 12-24. Just on the basis of area alone the 31 has an advantage over the 12-24 @ 12 of factor of ~6x. Fair comparison, not really - however I am trying to make a point, here.

Having said all of that, I had also posted on another thread this post from Luminous Landscape comparing the D800 vs D800e in terms of AA and no AA.

• Nikon D800-D800E First Comparison

At 100% crops you can see a difference. Is it a large difference? Well you really have to judge for yourself. It is difficult to quantify with a numerical value. The examples are using a 85mm and 150mm lenses. I think that you will certainly see a difference in the longer focal lengths, on larger print sizes. I am also thinking that you will see a difference in the closer in distances, as opposed to the further distances.

Where does that leave us with the wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses, say less than 24mm? I am thinking that the difference will be present, however will it even be able to be perceived or seen, even with large print sizes (I guessing here but let's say for the sake of argument, 20 x 30)?

Most professional and commercial landscapes are in the 24 to mid 30mm range, due to the lack of distortion. Stitching also works well. WA and UWA make use of foreground as well as the background. You will probably see some difference in the foreground detail, however as you work into the depth of field, you will probably loose the difference in sharpness with the increase in the pixel area.

The only way to really know is to see some side by side comparison examples, across a wide variety of scenes, in order to come to any type of conclusion.

Myself - well, I like my current K5, it does a stellar job. Is the additional detail and sharpness going to make a difference in the results I am seeing - I really don't know. I don't do a lot of large format printing, but it would be nice to have the ability to. If I actually wind up doing something, it is at least a year away. Anyway - these are my thoughts.......

[westmill]

I think the Tokina 12-24 F4 is probably the wideangle king of the hill at the moment. It would certainly be my first choice !

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX (Nikon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

[interested_observer]

I was doing some more web surfing this morning, somewhat looking for more information / points of view on this topic and stumbled (the coffee pot was still brewing) across this...

• Nikon D800 Review: Digital Photography Review

Yes, I keep going back to Nikon since they are currently the only ones who have bodies with and without AA filters that you can essentially do a side by side A/B test with. I found it interesting to have read the following...

Within the zone of best sharpness for the lenses that we've primarily used for comparison (a 50mm and 85mm prime) the D800E only held a meaningful lead over the D800 between F4 and F5.6. By F11 diffraction narrows the difference between the two models to the extent that the D800 and D800E produce virtually identical results. By F16 - a reasonable working aperture for landscape photographers that want front-to-back focus - the difference between the D800 and D800E's Raw output is academic. So if you're a portrait photographer working between F4-5.6 then yes - in your day-to-day photography you'll see the benefit of the D800E's special sensor design. If you shoot wide open, or stopped right down though, you probably won't.

Most of our direct comparisons between the D800 and D800E were made from their respective Raw output, but as you'll see from our JPEG comparisons and from our image quality comparison pages the D800E's JPEG output is significantly superior to the D800's at optimal aperture settings. Not only do the D800E's JPEGs look sharper at default settings, they contain noticeably more detail - something that will be very attractive to casual photographers that want to save storage space on cards and hard drives, but also to professionals that want better looking JPEG 'proofs'. Even in our F16 comparison images the D800E's JPEGs appear 'better' although close inspection reveals that they are no more detailed.

Ultimately then, if you're weighing up the D800 and D800E, in our opinion there is no obvious downside to opting for the more expensive model beyond the extra cost. You get better image quality in both RAW and JPEG mode (although diffraction and lens aberrations remove that benefit at certain aperture settings). And color moiré in still images - in the relatively few instances we've encountered it - is typically only marginally more visible in the D800E than it is in equivalent scene elements captured by the D800. Like the D800, the Nikon D800E earns our coveted gold award.

Obviously, the only thing that counts to us is how the K5IIs actually performs as opposed to either the K5 or the K5 II. Until then I think that Nikon is a reasonable standing reference. One thing that it does it serve as a stalking horse in terms of what tests and approaches bring out the differences, an then what does it mean to your shooting style.

So far, I think - or what sticks in my mind are the following areas:

• Lens types - What focal lengths tend to work best (UWA, WA, Normal, mild Telephoto, Telephoto). I bring this up since everything I have seen tends to use 50s, 85s, and 150s for a basis of comparison. This thread's original question, I think brings up a pretty unique question - as to what does loosing the AA filter mean to wider angle lenses.
• Aperture - This link above, straight out indicates the more open the aperture is, the greater the affect. f4 to f5.6 - I am wondering how this translates to the APS-c size sensor from the various analysis done of the FF size sensor, or does sensor size not matter. I don't know, so I am just taking this point on the principal expressed in the link.
• Distance - I have not seen this expressed as a criteria. Just my thinking - and I don't know here. I am just wondering out loud if with a wider lens and the larger area each pixel needs to represent, if there is any differentiation. Thinking some more along this line of thought - if the sensor provides a % increase in sharpness (which would be wonderful to quantify), it should be equally apparent across all shooting distances. My main thought here is that if you are shooting landscapes, say several miles away, will this additional sharpness actually be able to be apparent.
• Print Size - Again, just my own musings here. How large of a print would be necessary to actually be able to have the additional sharpness noticeable? Any size? or is there a threshold of ?????

We will actually start to know, probably by Halloween (cameras available on 10/15, and then say another 2 weeks to test and write reviews...).
__________________

I ran across some additional links, specifically this one, again from the Luminous Landscape...

• Nikon D800 / E Initial Impressions

I found this particular interesting in that in this writeup/analysis, the question of wide angle lenses are beginning to be touched on. 14mm is the widest lens that they are considering to use, and in particular only the best glass.

Another set of criteria was also brought up...

When I wrote my essay on choosing between the D800 and D800e back in March, 2012 I wrote that it was important to select the best lenses possible and also wrote the following about how to get the highest image quality that these cameras can produce.

– Use the optimum aperture. Apertures above about f/11 introduce diffraction which effectively acts as an unintentional AA filter
– Use a really solid tripod and head
– Use Live View, or mirror lock up with a remote release or self timer.
– Use critical focusing, using single point AF and LV focus magnification (up to 23X)
– When shooting hand-held use lenses with VR when possible, and also a high shutter speed... 2X or 3 X the reciprocal of the focal length, not the 1/focal length of olden days
– Use the lowest possible ISO, though as we'll see the camera is very clean up to and including ISO 1600

This brings up another couple of points.

• Shake Reduction - This is something that Nikon does not have. You have to be able to purchase a lens with stabilization for this to be applicable. Pentax with the in body stabilization, covers all lenses, all focal lengths. Thus, this would be a potential additional plus when handholding.
• Lowest Possible ISO - This is an equivalent here, since the K5's sensor meets the FF sensors in Dynamic Range. The lower ISOs of the K5 family at ISO80 would be a plus. Its not 50, but then again its not 100 or 200.

__________________

Falconeye has published some tests in terms of the difference of sharpness between the Nikon D800 and D800e.

• Falk Lumo: LumoLabs: Nikon D800 AA filter vs. D800E

The bottom line is (given that I read everything as intended), how strong is the AA filter in the body that sports the AA filter? So, there is not a single rule of measure between any model with and without an AA filter, it is specifically tuned to the make and model - which makes perfect sense. Pentax K5II vs K5IIs is going to be different, based on the AA filter in the K5II / K5. We need to wait for the bodies and some folks to test the two and make the comparisons. That also bring up yet another question. Is the AA filter the same in the K5 and the K5II - probably, but Pentax has not specifically said (other than K5 = K5II plus these upgrades).
__________________

There have also been some posting about comparing lens performance across both film and digital (with AA filters). The same lens on film has very sharp corners, and on digital (with AA), becomes very soft.

• The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF - FM Forums

So, by loosing the AA filter, the performance of some lenses may be increased. That would be favorable in the use of WA and UWA glass.