JR K5 IIs review
I couldn't have justified the price difference for an extra letter and a filter less.
I have now read the article and it is interesting, but I'm happy with my decision tbh. Now I just have to wait for my new camera.
Now I wish I could buy one straight away, but that isn't possible just now. Next time we upgrade we will be buying the IIs (or its replacement) but it has to be justified financially, so no whims I'm afraid.
I did go to some lengths to try and make the images shot with the II as identical as possible with those taken with the IIs, the intention being that anybody contemplating the choice could see for themselves. That way, they can makie their own informed decision.
Look to the right of the page under Latest News and Articles. The test is also on ePHOTOzine.
I've just checked out your review.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-k-5-iis-digital-slr-review-21127
You say ...
The result is amazing. Examining the images shot on both camera, especially impressive is how a fine tangled mass of branches suddenly becomes clear. How lovely hair texture becomes amazing hair texture. How the surfaces of decaying metalwork come alive with fine detail. This is perfect for detailed, texture-filled subject matter, such as landscapes and architecture, close-ups and macro, and, pleasingly, even portraiture.
Given I still have an open mind on the differences between the K-5II and the K-5IIs despite the irrelevant differences shown by previous comparisons , can you explain how you've been able to show such differences that imaging Resources and DPReview have not been able to show?
I cannot find one image that is attributed to the K-5II on the review at
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-k-5-iis-digital-slr-review-21127
as a comparison to the K-5IIs.
So we look at the K-5 IIs and now find not only the II improvements, but a new, totally impressive level of detail in the images. A clarity. It is visible clearly on screen.
Please provide links to comparison images to support this claim of a "new, totally impressive level of detail" -
What you have found by personal experience should be easily supported by comparison images. Every link on your review points to K-5IIs images. Where are the comparison K-55II images?
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
So, all you have to do is to download a full res image or two from the K-5 II review and then download the same images from the K-5 IIs review. You are then free to process them as you wish in Photoshop or Lightroom, or whatever else, and see for yourself.
I purposely did not dwell on previous reviews so I only saw what I saw and was not influenced at all by what other people saw, so I don't know if the other reviewers took the same methodology. I can only say that there was something here I wanted to know and I set about finding out.
So, my conclusion was very positive, and there's now no doubt at all in my mind. Smeggypants, you now need to find out for yourself, and I've given you the material to work with. Have fun with it.
Then the wife can have the K5 (she'll be happy!).
My K-5 is on it's way to Chris today for exchange with the MKII and I would of happily paid the extra £130 if I could see even the smallest improvement in detail (as a macro nut this is always a plus) but I really cannot see it.
Maybe it's time for a visit to the optician, not been since I was about 10.
Edit: shame there are no raw shots to download on the original review though.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
273 posts
12 years
Pentax Land
Review was posted at 11:45 today