K-5ii & K-5iis REVIEW


bjolester

Mike-P

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 17:12
Af better for low light shooting but no faster under normal conditions.
. My Flickr

mille19

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 17:32
Must admit I'm a bit underwhelmed and won't be upgrading, I'm happy with the K5 IQ and don't need AF in the dark, I was hoping for better AFC performance but it hasn't happened.
I think I'll be trying to find a second hand K5 to replace my K7

johnriley

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 17:44
One thing that struck me is that a test image was shot hand held. I find that quite surprising in a test of any kind.
Best regards, John

DrOrloff

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 18:37
The K5iis may (may) be a worthwhile upgrade for someone who makes a living out of this game. For everyone else it looks like wait and see. But this was always going to be a bit of an underwhelming stopgap measure until Ricoh can really make their mark on products.

No surprises.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined
Last Edited by DrOrloff on 29/10/2012 - 18:37

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 19:26
What I don't like is the hyperbole ....

"the K-5 IIs also employs a filterless sensor design, meaning that it will be able to deliver a much higher effective image resolution"

It's not 'much higher' it's slightly higher
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
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

McGregNi

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 20:08
What I would need to be clearer on, for any buying assessment, would be a firm idea on the validity of the following assumptions - what do you all think, would this be a fair sales pitch?

I should choose a K511s over the standard model because I want to :
1) Save time in PP as I'll not need to sharpen
2) Be able to sharpen more in PP without causing artifacts
3) Be able to make bigger prints that are just as sharp
4) My shots will have more clarity and definition
5) If I take shots of highly patterned textures such as textiles, I will
see Moire effects, but I can remove this easily in PP

As this all seems win win, will I be a happy customer, or will I be going back to the salesperson and claiming to have been misled?
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

kh1234567890

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 20:35
McGregNi wrote:
As this all seems win win, will I be a happy customer, or will I be going back to the salesperson and claiming to have been misled?

Looking at the IR samples - raw file data, before any demosaicing, gamma correction or processing - the difference in sharpness is very slight. K-5IIs on the right.



Unmangled original is here
Flickr Stream
Last Edited by kh1234567890 on 29/10/2012 - 20:39

McGregNi

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 20:44
That can be clearly seen for sure. I'd be immediately convinced on my points 1) & 4) above. So far a fairly happy customer. What about the other points, anyone.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

DrOrloff

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 21:59
What I don't really get is if removing the AA filter adds only minimal moire in real world use and which in any case is easy to remove then why didn't camera manufacturers do it the other way round, ie: produce a special version camera with an AA filter for knitting catalogue photographers.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined
Last Edited by DrOrloff on 29/10/2012 - 22:00

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 23:00
The K-5II certainyl doesn't remove nay need for sharpening in PP.

And good point Dr Orloff.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
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

davidstorm

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 23:02
I think I will wait and see what a good number of people think after owning a K-5IIs for a period of time. Only then will it be possible for us to make a reasoned judgement.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Last Edited by davidstorm on 29/10/2012 - 23:02

redbusa99

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 23:16
let,s not forget the comment about the lenses to get the best from this camera, the Pentax DA* and Limiteds. this expense on top of the extra cost of the unit for some thing that can be achieved by a few seconds pp work, i think most people at this time of financial constraint will skip this model and wait for the next incarnation of the K5 and see if it catches up with the other manufacturers where it falls short, as pointed out in the review by a Pentax site. not everybody takes photo,s in the dark.
odd lens or 2

Flickr

kh1234567890

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 23:21
DrOrloff wrote:
What I don't really get is if removing the AA filter adds only minimal moire in real world use and which in any case is easy to remove then why didn't camera manufacturers do it the other way round, ie: produce a special version camera with an AA filter for knitting catalogue photographers.

Rainbowy colour fringing at high contrast edges is going to be more of a problem than moire and is harder to remove. Moire will to some extent depend on the cleverness of the demosaicing algorithm.

Remember that DSLR marketing people are aiming at the 'sophisticated happy snapper' buyer coming from compacts or bridge cameras. Geeks are only a small part of the market. So the DSLR still has to produce a JPEG on which they can recognise Auntie Betty as they remember her, not some psychedelic aberration. The manufacturers have to play it safe.

Myself, I wish that all the effort going into 1001 ways of messing up your shots in-camera went into things like a faster shake reduction lock-in or more intelligent and tweakable exposure algorithms.
Flickr Stream

Dodge69

Link Posted 29/10/2012 - 23:27
DrOrloff wrote:
why didn't camera manufacturers do it the other way round, ie: produce a special version camera with an AA filter for knitting catalogue photographers.

LOL best point I've read for a while.

I'm afraid the test does not sell the extra expense for a K5II or K5IIs over the K5 to me anyway. Which seems contradictory as surely the K5IIs is for Pentax diehards? I mean your up in 7D money or even 5D mkII?? In general why would the neutral go K5IIs over them?

No I'm afraid it's back to the waiting game, a game at least that appears to have become more optimistic.
Pentax pour des images riches en détails!
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.