[JohnBee]

Having read numerous posts on this I decided to grab RAW files from each system to see how things looked in terms of final IQ.
Keeping in mind that these files did not receive any adjustments beyond that of sharpening so as to keep the playing field as level as possible.

That being said, the objective here was to see just what(if any) advantages the K-5 IIs holds over its AA counterpart.
And so to help show this I chose to develop both files in Raw Therapee with neutral settings(less adjustments), whereas the K-5 II received a
deconvoluted sharpening of: 71/21 radius/strength. Though I'm thinking the K-5 II may have benefited from slightly less sharpening.

Having said all that, here are the results:

Pentax K-5 IIs

click for full size image

Pentax K-5 II

click for full size image

Hope this helps.
JohnBee

PS. I was going to publish an in-depth breakdown of the pros and cons between both images, but decided to leave it an open topic instead.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 11-13-2012 at 05:09 PM.

[Anvh]

Thanks for the comparison.
The mkIIs photo actually looks slightly softer, you did sharpen both the same amount?
Maybe the focus was a bit off?

I wonder if it's easy to remove the moire in the mkIIs photo, anyone want to try and report back?


So far i dont see anything why to get the mkIIs or am i missing something?

[Adam]

The difference is negligible IMO, unless you also sharpen the IIs shot. The only thing I noticed was that the dust on the Bailey's bottle is a bit clearer.

[Zafar Iqbal]

I see a difference but it's not much. The photouniverse guy said if you already have a K-5 then there isn't much point in getting K-5 II. I tend to agree based on just these two photos.

Vlog 11-11-12 - YouTube

[JohnBee]

Sorry folks, this is between the K-5 IIs and K-5 II, not K-5, as previously labeled. - typo.
As for sharpening, I only deblurred the K-5 II (not the IIs) in an effort to place both images on equal footing.

Hope this helps.

[JinDesu]

Weird, because when I took their DNG files and ran it through my photoshop with equal settings (unsharp mask, forgot the settings) for both the k-5II files and the k-5IIs files, I get the below:

Click for full -


Edit - Oh, so the k-5II was sharpened but not the k-5IIs? What's the point then..?

[Zafar Iqbal]

I was puzzled by the K-5 having moire - if that's now the K-5 IIs, then that shot is still the softest. Could be a too big deviation in focusing.

Sharpening one doesn't cope well with comparisons like this.

[JohnBee]

The mkIIs photo actually looks slightly softer, you did sharpen both the same amount?

I think the K-5 II might have benefited from slightly less sharpening so as to better match the K-5 IIs. I'm going to see if I can improve this even further, though so far, I am quite surprised at how easy it is to match the K-5 IIs with the K-5 II.

[JohnBee]

Weird, because when I took their DNG files and ran it through my photoshop with equal settings (unsharp mask, forgot the settings) for both the k-5II files and the k-5IIs files, I get the below:

I don't think we can compare ACR or LR with Raw Therapee at this stage.

Edit - Oh, so the k-5II was sharpened but not the k-5IIs? What's the point then..?

To see whether or not the K-5 II can match or exceed the K-5 IIs. (think starting point). For example, for those contemplating the advantages and disadvantages between both system.

[JinDesu]

I don't think I intended to compare my CS5 to your RAW Therapee. My original thought was that you applied sharpening to both files equally and came out with no noticeable difference. That conflicted with what I found when I played with the RAW files - and so I posted my image.

I only noticed after that you applied sharpening to the k-5II files but not the k-5IIs files. While admittedly it may not take a lot of effort to get the k-5II RAW to match the base k-5IIs RAW, you still needed to sharpen the k-5II RAW to match. Therefore, at the given equivalent maximum sharpening you can apply to both files, the k-5IIs will be sharper (and to me - quite noticeably).

In addition, I am under the impression that the k-5IIs files can actually be sharpened more than the k-5II files before artifacts appear. I haven't tested this because I haven't had much time to.

[JohnBee]

While admittedly it may not take a lot of effort to get the k-5II RAW to match the base k-5IIs RAW, you still needed to sharpen the k-5II RAW to match. Therefore, at the given equivalent maximum sharpening you can apply to both files, the k-5IIs will be sharper (and to me - quite noticeably).

In addition, I am under the impression that the k-5IIs files can actually be sharpened more than the k-5II files before artifacts appear. I haven't tested this because I haven't had much time to.

Though I find the effects of the AA filter to be quite remarkable. I'd encourage all who are interested to see for themselves how each image behaves. To which I'd add, I think you may be surprised as to what you find.

PS. don't forget to take into account that it is deconvoluted sharpening(deblur) that was used in this case. (Not to be confused with unsharp mask type sharpening)

[adi3000]

They are not correct compared. You cannot sharpen only K5II and not K5IIs. From my experience until now, K5IIs support more sharpening then K5II. You can judge yourselves:

K5II ISO1600
http://www.atcrom.ro/5017/index.php?cmd=dl&sfpg=Kks1Mi5qcGcqNjE2NWViZDUzNjJh...zQyYjk1MDZiZTM

K5IIs ISO1600
http://www.atcrom.ro/5017/index.php?cmd=dl&sfpg=Kks1MnMuanBnKjNkNWQzZjg0NzNl...FmNTAxN2M1ZTJi

both processed in LR4.2 (contrast +5, clarity +5, vibrance +10, Hue Red +20, Luminance Red +20, Sharp +50, Radius +1.4, Detail +70, Noise reduction +30, Noise detail +50, Lens profile correction enabled, Camera profile Embedded) More then that can produce artifacts.

[JinDesu]

Sorry - why did you choose the ISO1600 files? Seems odd to select files to sharpen until you get artifacts and selecting the noisy ones to add noise reduction.

[Anvh]

The question is if we see more details in the mkIIs, not if one looks sharper or not if you ask me.
So far i can't find any details in the mkIIs shot that i cant find in the normal version.

[JohnBee]

They are not correct compared. You cannot sharpen only K5II and not K5IIs. Form my experience until now, K5IIs support more sharpening then K5II. You can judge yourselves:

Hi, while I'm happy to see your contribution to the thread, could I ask that you resize your image using(IMGWIDE) so as to avoid bogging down the thread? - thx.