K-5II vs K-5IIs


DaveR

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 05:43
Iíve read much about the K-5II vs K-5IIs. Itís confusing!

I want to upgrade from the K-7 because of the better high ISO performance, low noise, better dynamic range and better auto focusing (Iíve found the DXO Labs site helpful here http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Pentax ).

I shoot landscape, macro, events and family portraits. I keep post processing to a minimum (Iím still getting a handle on it), donít envisage enlarging beyond 16 x 24. I'm looking to put myself out there more in a professional way Ė especially family portraits and trying to sell my own landscape and macro prints /images in the near future.

Lenses used: FA 50 1.4, FA 100 Macro, Tamron 28 Ė 70 2.8, Sigma 70 Ė 200 2.8, Tamron 17 - 35 2.8-4, Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6.

Does anyone have some simplified thoughts on real world pros and cons on which body to choose?

Mannesty

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 06:12
The K-5IIs lacks the anti-aliasing filter which might cause some daylight lit shots (landscapes) to suffer from moire fringing. The removal of this filter is aimed at benefiting portrait photographers.

From what users have written here, there seems to be very little difference in IQ between the two models.

Faced with your decision, I think I'd buy the cheaper K-5II.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

Fletcher8

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 09:02
If I were upgrading from a K7, I would personally go for the K5lls. If you search the web for a comparison of images between the K5ll and the K5lls a difference can be seen in the level of detail. As for moire fringing, it can be dealt with in photoshop if it does occur. I still think the original K5 is a great camera, that would provide you with more than enough at a much lower cost.
Fletcher8.
Last Edited by Fletcher8 on 30/12/2012 - 09:14

johnriley

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 10:07
Quote:
The removal of this filter is aimed at benefiting portrait photographers.

The removal of the AA filter will result in increased/sharper definition of detail, so not really for portrait photographers. I'm sure most people don't want to see every pore and defect delineated with crisp, cruel definition!

More for landscape and architecture really, where fine detail may well be required.
Best regards, John

CMW

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 10:37
The latest models of the K5 are good cameras. They have an improved low-light focusing ability compared to the original K5, so if you do a lot of low-light shooting you might appreciate that. I have not found the K5 deficient in that respect on a day-to-day basis; it depends how much low-light stuff you are likely to do. There has been a prolonged debate on another thread (as you'll be aware) about the benefits of removing the anti-aliasing filter. Suffice to say, that there is some benefit but probably not much for the purposes you describe. Compared with the bargain price of the K5, you will pay a premium of about £200 for getting a KII and about £350 for a KIIs. Only you can decide whether that's money we'll spent.
Regards, Christopher

ChristopherWheelerPhotography

johnriley

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 10:56
I've modified the very long title to something more manageable.

DaveR

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 11:05
Thanks so far everyone.

Price isn't a big issue, I've decided on a II or a IIs (better LCD and according to DXO Mark slightly better sensor performance than the K-5), the price difference here in Oz isn't as great as the UK.

K10D

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 11:56
The K5 II is good value at $989 over here but a K5 is better value for $768. I've not shot with either of the two new variants so can't offer advice.

I'm sure you won't be disappointed with either though.

Best regards
cameradextrous _ Motorcycles etc. link

bettyswolloks

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 13:23
When I got the chance to upgrade from my K7 I went with the IIs simply because on paper its the better of the two. The difference is simply amazing! Now I've said this before, I would of probably seen the same if I'd of gone for a standard K5, due to the reasons you want to upgrade for noise low light etc etc etc. So if money is not the deciding factor, K5IIs is the one
I'm only 4fut3, but I look a lot bigger from a distance

Nikon D600, 18-55, 50 F1.8, Sigma 70-200 HSM,180macro.
MZ-7, K-10,K-7, all gripped.
Pentax 35 28-80
Sigma 50 EX Macro.
A sexy little Q with 8.5mm Prime.
And a cup with a gorrila on it, it's also chipped a little, but holds tea perfectly well.

Ranfog Flickr Group

Helpful

Smeggypants

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 15:08
Fletcher8 wrote:
If I were upgrading from a K7, I would personally go for the K5lls. If you search the web for a comparison of images between the K5ll and the K5lls a difference can be seen in the level of detail. As for moire fringing, it can be dealt with in photoshop if it does occur. I still think the original K5 is a great camera, that would provide you with more than enough at a much lower cost.

But only at 200% and drawing red rings around those differences.

There's a 6 page thread on this already

IMO ... unless you want better low light AF then I would go for the original K-5. A much much better deal. Same image qulaity, same features. much less cost. Put the difference towards another lens.
[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

johnriley

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 15:26
I don't see why, if someone can appreciate why they would want a IIs or anything else, that we should discourage them, unless of course there seems to be a major pitfall for them.

So far, the negativity seems to have come from those of us who have not actually tried hand on, but are judging from on-screen viewing of test images done by others. It will therefore depend on their viewpoint, their monitor screen, their visual acuity, etc.

I'd much rather wait for some hands-on experience before coming to any conclusions.
Best regards, John

Smeggypants

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 15:48
johnriley wrote:
I don't see why, if someone can appreciate why they would want a IIs or anything else, that we should discourage them, unless of course there seems to be a major pitfall for them.

So far, the negativity seems to have come from those of us who have not actually tried hand on, but are judging from on-screen viewing of test images done by others. It will therefore depend on their viewpoint, their monitor screen, their visual acuity, etc.

I'd much rather wait for some hands-on experience before coming to any conclusions.

Surely if people are asking for opinions then we should allow opinions of all viewpoints?


Can't speak for others, but my comments on the KIIs aren't based upon negativity. I have no prejudice for the KIIs to fail, I'm just basing those comments on the comparisons published so far.


Quote:
So far, the negativity seems to have come from those of us who have not actually tried hand on, but are judging from on-screen viewing of test images done by others. It will therefore depend on their viewpoint, their monitor screen, their visual acuity, etc.

And when you actually get a K5II and K5IIs to compare hands on, your comparisons will still depend on your viewpoint, your monitor screen and your visual acuity. Unless of course you're going to make 100% prints, and then that will depend on the printer, the paper and the inks.


[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

cabstar

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 15:48
I would rather hear from someone who owns all three versions of the k-5 or even just mkii and mkiis.
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Smeggypants

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 16:10
So are the comparisons on Imaging resources and DPreview irrelevant and useless?
[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

Mannesty

Link Posted 30/12/2012 - 16:45
johnriley wrote:
Quote:
The removal of this filter is aimed at benefiting portrait photographers.

The removal of the AA filter will result in increased/sharper definition of detail, so not really for portrait photographers. I'm sure most people don't want to see every pore and defect delineated with crisp, cruel definition!

More for landscape and architecture really, where fine detail may well be required.

Taken from Pentax.co.uk web site:-

Quote:
The K-5 IIs is a model offered without an anti-aliasing filter; this filter, commonly found in dSLRs, helps smooth computer generated imagery by decreasing high frequencies and distortion, but also reduces detail resolution. Without this filter included, the K5-IIs creates opportunities for deeply rich, detailed imagery at supreme resolution levels. Capture stunning landscapes and scenes with maximum depth of field and clarity. The K5-IIs model is the perfect choice for studio and commercial photography where camera settings, lens selection and shooting conditions are controlled.

The two statements "reduces detail resolution" and "Capture stunning landscapes and scenes with maximum depth of field and clarity." would seem to be contradictory, so which is right, if any?
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 30/12/2012 - 16:47
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.