[Heie]

I have both cameras, so I thought I would help provide as clear a picture (hehe pun!) as possible as to what decision is best for you when it comes to sharpness.

I took a slightly different approach than the 100% crops from DPR type image tests. I took a series of 8 scenes. Unfortunately, I will post only three - I did not realize how much I missed focus at wide open apertures with the FA77 and the DA* 55, part because of BF/FF on the K-30, but moreso I was using curved beer steins and apparently the curve is too sharp and thus deeper than the focus plane on each lens even when closed down 1 stop, which, I was not expecting.

Each scene I will show you a resized version of the full image (resized from the original 16 mpx to 18% - 888x588px) and under it the 100% crops of the center where the focus point was. Where I differ is not only am I providing the 100% unedited crops, but I've also done what I feel is critically missing when it comes to K-5 IIs comparisons - it's potential. So I've taken each image and processed them to their fullest potential (which, admittedly, is based on my own processing skills, so take that into account as well). But regardless, I think this provides a much clearer perspective as to the true potential of the K-5 II's and it's AA filter omition vs the AA competition.

Each each was processed in LR4 and when ISO was above the base ISO, I used Topaz DeNoise to remove the noise (which, this is my first time really using DeNoise as I just got it and I must say: holy crap - that program is INCREDIBLE!). I also made the choice to use the base ISO of 80 on the K-5 IIs to see how that compares to the K-30's 100 as I felt that was applicable to asserting the potential of the K-5 IIs over the K-30 (and ISO 80 is definitely something to consider as a positive of the K-5 series).

Each shot was taken on a tripod in the same exact position (I didn't move the tripod between shots until I was complete with each scene) using a remote release and Shake Reduction turned off. Aside from the aforementioned ISO differentiation at base ISO, all the settings are exactly the same (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus point, framing, lens).

If you would like the RAW files for any of the comparisons below, pm me and I will get them to you - they are too large to embed/attach here.

SCENE ONE: DA* 16-50, 16mm, 1/60s, f/6.3, ISO 800, Distance Approx 1.5m

Full Scene Comparison



100% Crop Comparison



--

SCENE TWO: DA* 16-50, 50mm, 1/60s, f/7.1, ISO 800, Distance Approx 1.5m

Full Scene Comparison



100% Crop Comparison



--

SCENE THREE: FA 77 LTD, 77mm, 1/200s, f/8, ISO 80/100, Distance Approx 20m

Full Scene Comparison



100% Comparison



I'm actually really upset that I didn't catch the FF/BF/focus plane issues until I got to my computer and imported the images in lightroom. I wish I could show the other 5 scenes, however it would be a waste. I would redo them however honestly I am exhausted from this testing project - all in all this has taken over 5 hours over several days' downtime. I had no idea it would take that long, however when I commit to something I will see it through.

Like I said, I wish the other 5 weren't a wash, however I think the verdict is pretty clear...

Hope this helps.

Very Respectfully,
Heie

[john5100]

Well, the K5IIs is clearly the best and you would expect that. What Heie's very good test tells me is that money no object, go for the K5IIs. If you are on a budget, you can not go wrong with the K30. So, enjoy good wine, buy the camera that you can afford and you will not be disappointed.

Very good conversation about over buying on camera gear.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1203885

[JinDesu]

Thanks for that real world test, Heie!

[IDude]

I have both cameras, so I thought I would help provide as clear a picture (hehe pun!) as possible as to what decision is best for you when it comes to sharpness.

Heie, I'd like to thank you for tremendous comparison K-30 vs K-5IIs -- this is exactly what I was looking for awhile.

As an owner of both models, do you mind sharing your thought about compassion beyond image sharpness. There are some obvious differences, such as focus peaking, top display, video recording, 14bits vs 12bits... What I'm looking for is your personal opinion why one is better than the other. Also, you mentioned that K-30 AF did some mistakes in your test, can you say that K-5IIs AF is more reliable?

[Conqueror]

Thanks for posting that comparison Heie.

I think a key difference, 12 bit and 14 bit, is demonstrated (colour transitions) here, but I had to look for it quite a bit.

It shows the K-30 to perform well for the cash IMO. There's no doubt it represents good value, possibly best value body on the market?

As an itchy K-7 user, I am tempted by the K-30, K-5 mk1, or dare I say the K-5iis ... K-5ii seems a pointless buy to me at the prices I've seen.. not enough gain over K-5 mk1 for the asking price, might as well go all way to iis

[rpslijk123]

I have had a chance to use both the K-30 and now the K-5 IIS and I prefer the K-5 IIS . I take a lot of low light photos and the K-5 IIS is far superior! I also like the fact that the K-5 zooms in before taking a picture so you can check to see if you pic is in focus. I found that manual settings and focus are easier as well.

I bought both my cameras in Japan and it turns out they cost me about the same (within $100 or so) at the time I bought them. One difference is that the K-5 IIS is quite a bit heavier.

I found that the grip gives a better feel for my large hands. I also like having many more external controls (control of focus points for example) that the K-5 IIS offers.

I am glad I made the switch.

[jonnyhooks]

I have both cameras, so I thought I would help provide as clear a picture (hehe pun!) as possible as to what decision is best for you when it comes to sharpness.

I took a slightly different approach than the 100% crops from DPR type image tests. I took a series of 8 scenes. Unfortunately, I will post only three - I did not realize how much I missed focus at wide open apertures with the FA77 and the DA* 55, part because of BF/FF on the K-30, but moreso I was using curved beer steins and apparently the curve is too sharp and thus deeper than the focus plane on each lens even when closed down 1 stop, which, I was not expecting.

Each scene I will show you a resized version of the full image (resized from the original 16 mpx to 18% - 888x588px) and under it the 100% crops of the center where the focus point was. Where I differ is not only am I providing the 100% unedited crops, but I've also done what I feel is critically missing when it comes to K-5 IIs comparisons - it's potential. So I've taken each image and processed them to their fullest potential (which, admittedly, is based on my own processing skills, so take that into account as well). But regardless, I think this provides a much clearer perspective as to the true potential of the K-5 II's and it's AA filter omition vs the AA competition.

Each each was processed in LR4 and when ISO was above the base ISO, I used Topaz DeNoise to remove the noise (which, this is my first time really using DeNoise as I just got it and I must say: holy crap - that program is INCREDIBLE!). I also made the choice to use the base ISO of 80 on the K-5 IIs to see how that compares to the K-30's 100 as I felt that was applicable to asserting the potential of the K-5 IIs over the K-30 (and ISO 80 is definitely something to consider as a positive of the K-5 series).

Each shot was taken on a tripod in the same exact position (I didn't move the tripod between shots until I was complete with each scene) using a remote release and Shake Reduction turned off. Aside from the aforementioned ISO differentiation at base ISO, all the settings are exactly the same (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus point, framing, lens).

If you would like the RAW files for any of the comparisons below, pm me and I will get them to you - they are too large to embed/attach here.

SCENE ONE: DA* 16-50, 16mm, 1/60s, f/6.3, ISO 800, Distance Approx 1.5m

Full Scene Comparison



100% Crop Comparison



--

SCENE TWO: DA* 16-50, 50mm, 1/60s, f/7.1, ISO 800, Distance Approx 1.5m

Full Scene Comparison



100% Crop Comparison



--

SCENE THREE: FA 77 LTD, 77mm, 1/200s, f/8, ISO 80/100, Distance Approx 20m

Full Scene Comparison



100% Comparison



I'm actually really upset that I didn't catch the FF/BF/focus plane issues until I got to my computer and imported the images in lightroom. I wish I could show the other 5 scenes, however it would be a waste. I would redo them however honestly I am exhausted from this testing project - all in all this has taken over 5 hours over several days' downtime. I had no idea it would take that long, however when I commit to something I will see it through.

Like I said, I wish the other 5 weren't a wash, however I think the verdict is pretty clear...

Hope this helps.

Very Respectfully,
Heie

Just wanted to thank you for these tests, It pushed me over the edge in buying the k5-iis, as i already have a k-01 i think I've got most of the new features covered, now to find that perfect set of glass.........

[Ash]

Heie for Pentax marketing
Indeed, well done mate for your practical test results. Certainly, these results fly in the face of image Resource's own tests, but it would certainly make sense for the K-5 IIs to have the improved sharpness over any camera with the same sensor with AA filter.

[IchabodCrane]

I have had a chance to use both the K-30 and now the K-5 IIS and I prefer the K-5 IIS . I take a lot of low light photos and the K-5 IIS is far superior! I also like the fact that the K-5 zooms in before taking a picture so you can check to see if you pic is in focus. I found that manual settings and focus are easier as well.

I bought both my cameras in Japan and it turns out they cost me about the same (within $100 or so) at the time I bought them. One difference is that the K-5 IIS is quite a bit heavier.

I found that the grip gives a better feel for my large hands. I also like having many more external controls (control of focus points for example) that the K-5 IIS offers.

I am glad I made the switch.

May I ask the prices you paid? The $100 difference between the K-30 and K-5iis is astoundingly small and not something anyone has claimed before. Thanks.

[Spodeworld]

Aren't the color transitions between 14 and 12 bit images only really noticeable in the deep shadows?

Thanks for posting that comparison Heie.

I think a key difference, 12 bit and 14 bit, is demonstrated (colour transitions) here, but I had to look for it quite a bit.

It shows the K-30 to perform well for the cash IMO. There's no doubt it represents good value, possibly best value body on the market?

As an itchy K-7 user, I am tempted by the K-30, K-5 mk1, or dare I say the K-5iis ... K-5ii seems a pointless buy to me at the prices I've seen.. not enough gain over K-5 mk1 for the asking price, might as well go all way to iis

[rpslijk123]

I paid $1400 for the K-30/green color with the 18~135 WR lens. This was when they first came out and were at a bit of a premium price. I paid $1500 for the K-5IIs with the same 18~135WR lens. I was able to get a discount.

[PentaxSX]

thanks a lot, great test, amazing result.
I don't think i am gona upgrade to K5iis now. lol

[TropicalMonkey]

I have both cameras, so I thought I would help provide as clear a picture (hehe pun!) as possible as to what decision is best for you when it comes to sharpness.

....
...
....
Like I said, I wish the other 5 weren't a wash, however I think the verdict is pretty clear...

Hope this helps.

Very Respectfully,
Heie

Very nice comparison! I like this better than comparometer!!
If you could include K-5 classic also to that mix that would have been wonderful!

[Christian V.]

I actually find the K30 to be sharper and have less noise in certain situations. Sure the k5, k5II and K5iis have 14bit which is slightly better for dynamic range, but I think in terms of sharpness, k30 seems better. For higher iso's 3200 and above, it seems the k5 variants have lower noise, but iso's that high are rarely used anyway. Check out the comparison images at imaging resource. I had heard somewhere that it was possible the K30 is sharpening or removing noise even from RAW files, while the K5 variants have a more raw, raw file.

Here are some (k5ii-s on left, k30 on right) @ iso 800

If you look closer, the K-5 sample shows fine details of the brush down to the strands. The K-30 sample relies on increased contrast to appear sharper than it really is.

[bjelde]

I just wanted to jump in and say I love this forum! I have the exact same question as OP: K-r to K-30 or K-5-iis? I really love K-30 features like focus peaking and video modes. But i am also eager to have sharp, wedding photographer type creamy pictures.

Too bad the top end lacks features that the cheaper models have! I'm leaning towards K-30 with 18-135 WR. K-30 seems so well-loved and I don't own any great lenses yet.