Got to be asked....K5 ii or iis...

Hi Mac,

I've had my K5iis for several months now and although I haven't done any specific testing for moire, I can say that I haven't noticed it on any shots as yet. Most of my stuff is landscapes, casual portraits and some architecture.

Hopefully you'll get a good few replies of similar nature. The sharpness with high end lenses is notably better IMO

Cheers

I have a K5iis and have not noticed any moire at all.

TBH I don't think you will get a definitive answer from this forum as no one (correct me if I'm wrong) has taken 2 identical pictures, in identical conditions, with identical lenses and settings, with the two cameras which can be compared well enough to categorically state that the (s) makes enough (or any) difference to warrant the difference in price.

Moire seems, from reports, to be a non-issue.

I think it boils down to this: if your current images have shown any indication of moire then they probably will in either of the K5ii models. If it worries you buy a K5ii, if not then either will do.
If you're into pixel peeping for detail then you may feel that the £100-ish difference is worth it.

I am very happy with the level of detail I get from my K5iis but I'm sure that I would have been equally happy with the K5ii.

If you're buying 2nd hand get either one that comes up in your budget. If you're buying new then only you can justify the extra for the (s) regardless of the many opinions you will get on here.

I hope that's of help and as even handed as possible

I spent some time with the II and IIs and the K-3 when I reviewed them for ePHOTOzine. Trying to get any moire, especially with the K-3, was next to impossible.

I wouldn't worry about it and would go for the extra bite of the IIs or K-3.

It does seem that moire is less likely with larger and the most modern sensors. Presumably thats why makers have started to offer the aa filter-less options. Also there have been reports here of other factors coming into play apart from the filter - such as focal length and aperture, distance from the offending subject etc. So there does seem to be some ways to reduce it if its unavoidable. I'm not too convinced on any software solutions though, as they still rely essentially on blurring techniques, so can only be limited to small areas where the effects won't matter, and the point of having no aa filter was to reduce blur in the first place.




Should I give him a link? A bit reluctant, as I'm sure everyone has heard more than enough of what I said about it . But its relavent though, certainly for the weighing up and personal choice. And in fact in the image I tested there was an area of very clear and distinct moire on the 's' image, where the 'non-s' image was unnaffected.

So OP, check it out ..... you may decide the £100 is better off staying with you for something else (pentaxforums.com ....
link )

I've had my K-5iis since November - no signs of Moire yet, but have not specifically tested for it. I mainly take landscape, some architecture/urban, macro/close-up.

I thought that I might get some Moire in shots of recently 'bashed' pistes in the Alps, which have a regular corduroy pattern to them, but nothing - just nice sharp images (but so boring that I've deleted them!).

Phil

I'm another in the K-5II camp.

I just couldn't see enough difference to justify the £150 (at that time) premium. I see it's now £80 so maybe I would be more inclined to pay but I have to say the increase in sharpness can't be attributed 100% to the lack of AA filter because my K5II is a lot better than my old K5 MKI.

Well I have fairly recently acquired a K-5ii. I really wanted to go for the s but as I shoot weddings for money I couldnt risk it and as mentioned above the price difference. I dont own any "professional" editing software and having to remove moire after the fact would likely be a major headache. If weddings were not the case I think I would have stumped up the extra