How are 'you' getting on with the K-5 IIs?

I'm torn between the II and the IIs.

A question for those of you who have actually bought the IIs - any problems with moire, etc?

Moire hasn't been a problem so far.
cheers
bb2

Thanks bb2. Seems you also have the K5?

Notice any significant difference between it and the IIs, other than perhaps low light performance?

Suppose my question is, would you buy the IIs again if you hadn't already bought it?

Yes JohnX. Don't regret buying it. Wanted a backup unit for an Antarctic trip. Having the K5 and K5iis means it's easy to switch between the two. My son will get the K20D.The AF is better in dark conditions at least.Subjectively I think the images are noticeably sharper.Bit of an extravagance but the Antarctic trip will be once in a lifetime I'm sure!
cheers
bb2

Moiré isn't a problem, I tried to capture some just out of interest, found some while pixel peeping at 400% so I gave up looking any further
Buy it and love it, you wont look back Mate

I wish someone would post some comparisons that actually show this. Even the sites dedicated to comparing cameras under controlled conditions haven't yet managed to show the K-5IIs is any sharper than the K-5II or K-5

Kings new clothes methinks

I would love to see this myself, not having an original K5 I cant do a side by side, if anyone here is close to the OL13 area of Lancashire with a K5 and fancies doing just that send me a PM

Have you looked at the comparometer on Imaging Resource? You can place the same image at the same ISO side by side and although there is very little difference between the 5 and the IIs but it is there.

5 on the left and IIs on the right, both at 80 ISO

Yes, that was the first comparison I saw and you've only helped to prove my point by posting that.

This is another comparison that showed that any differences are only of use in the world of eyestrained pixel peeping and of no use to practical photography IMO.

Personally I would say if you don't trust your own eyesight and have money to burn then buy the K-5IIs, otherwise save the money to put towards another lens or something else that actually makes a difference to your photography and get the K-5II.

Or maybe just the limitations of reproduction on the web and on magazine pages.

One way or another, I am hopeful that I may be able to offer some insight in the near future.

Well possibly, but they are showing 100% versions.

And if you can only see any real difference when blowing up further than 100% thus exposing pixels that were never there in the first place, it brings us back to 'no practical purpose for photography' doesn't it?

I still remain open to any future comparisons that may show differences that Imaging resources and DPReview havn't been able to muster though, but I'm not holding my breath

All these 100% pixel peep tests are just nonsense,
you can get bigger differences from consecutive frames
off the same camera

Also it's impossible to focus on the same spot twice
without focus bracketing.

-

Odd how pentax would release a camera that has no practical purpose for photography You learn something new everyday

The problem with these comparisons is that they are done under perfect conditions and lighting. I imagine at extremes you will see a difference.i imagine the mkiis gives a little scope for misfocussing and making slightly soft images sharper than they would have been.

I still cannot decide, I have until New Year's Eve to decide before the £100 extra trade in offer ends at SRS...

And that's my problem too...

There's £130 difference between the II and IIs in the SRS sale, £330 between the K-5 'classic' and the IIs.

The various reports/comparisons seem to point towards the improved IQ in the IIs as being real.

Certainly I see a difference in the images posted by StveEveritt, but I don't take studio images and wonder whether I would see any improvement in my real-world images? I would espect to see some change over my K20D, but I would get that I'm sure with the K-5 'classic'.

Time to ponder some more...