K-5II vs K-5IIs


cabstar

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 05:19
Is the mkiis the image on the right?? Looks a tad sharper?
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

giofi

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 07:19
Smeggy, very difficult to spot any difference at least for me.....
But maybe a poll would have been better? Seeing the others' answer does influences me at least....

Out of curiosity: what lens and settings were used for these shots?
Giorgio

Pentax Photo Gallery

Algernon

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 08:36
On the D800_E_master.tif

Right side shot is sharper

K-5II_s_master.tif

Left shot is back focussed by at least half of the bottle.
So no valid comparison possible

-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

CMW

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 11:41
The OP may have gathered by now what a finely balanced decision he has to make. It's odd that so much difference of opinion exists with so little persuasive evidence around, even though both versions of the camera are now 'out in the world'. It's also slightly odd to be hailing a technological advance that, if anything, is a 'rolling back' of technology. I don't doubt the veracity of the technical claims Pentax, and before them Nikon, have made for their 'e' or 's' cameras, but I'm sceptical that in daily use there's much of a difference. Possibly the marketing message has run ahead of reality (?). I think the fuss is largely generated because the K5II/s has comparatively little else to shout about (cf K7 v K5). This is not complaint or negativity, but observation.
Regards, Christopher

ChristopherWheelerPhotography

Helpful

andrewk

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 11:58
CMW wrote:
It's odd that so much difference of opinion exists with so little persuasive evidence around, even though both versions of the camera are now 'out in the world'.

Studying photos using the image comparators on the Imaging Resource and DPReview websites has convinced me that the experimental error in their testing regimes is greater than the difference in image quality of the cameras under test.

If the Imaging Resource test team cannot squeeze an obviously better JPEG from a K5-IIs than from a K30 of an identical target under controlled conditions, then I feel justified in concluding that my chances of doing that in the real world are small.

Andrew
Flickr photostream

Algernon

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 12:03
That's true Andrew.... I am amazed that Imaging Resource
have taken loads of test shots with what looks to be an
out of focus camera Possibly it could be a faulty
lens/camera?

-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

DaveR

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 12:19
bettyswolloks wrote:
.....Blah Blah Blah Yadda Yadda Yadda.....

DaveR wrote:
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?

As I've said already Mate, moving up from the K7 to any of the K5 variants is a win win situation. The improved noise control is a revelation, making the use of auto iso a real possibility. Then there is iso80 Mate this is a thing of beauty The dynamic range is fantastic, the extra frame rate is fun, 7fps. If money isn't much of an issue then it makes sense to go for the top of the range, the IIs You wont luck back

Thanks bettyswolloka. So have you come across any of the dreaded moire? If so, in what circumstances? Any negatives about the 's' so far? What sort of ISO's do you go up to and still get good real world results (and if you could describe a little of what 'real world' means in what context might be helpful eg. 8x12 prints of portraits without loss of detail...)

MrB

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 12:30
The point is a simple one - the evidence shows that it is difficult to see any differences between images from the II and the IIs, even when viewed close up at high magnification, so they are unlikely to show in Dave's (the OP's) photos when viewed as would a normal person, and no-one has yet produced evidence to the contrary.

The following paragraph is an extract from DPREVIEW's detailed review of the original K-5, on a different but perhaps relevant point:
"The combination of a high pixel count and exceptionally low noise floor mean that the Pentax K-5 low sensitivity output does not only come out of the camera with plenty of detail, the shadow areas are also remarkably clean, and full of genuine detail. The only issue to be aware of as far as image quality is concerned, is the occasional appearance of jaggies in very fine diagonal lines, where they appear 'stepped'. This is almost certainly a consequence of the K-5's light AA filter. We saw this clearly in our studio test images but it should be stressed that in the hundreds of 'real world' pictures that we took with the K-5, we barely noticed it."
(The bold-underline is mine.)

Perhaps therein lies the answer - might the fact that the K-5 has a "light AA filter" explain why it is so difficult (for those with normal vision) to see the difference in images when it has been removed?

Dave, it would seem true that for you to upgrade from the K-7, any of the K-5 series would suit you so, if low light AF is critical to your work, then get the II - in the "real world" of your photography the IIs is unnecessary.

However, if you have the funds for a IIs, and noting your wish to turn professional, you might ponder an alternative - sell your K-7 and get two K-5 bodies. Working with two bodies improves your speed of work and security, and not having to remember the different features and characteristics of two different bodies improves your efficiency.

Of course, if money is no object get two K-5IIs bodies!

Cheers.
Philip

Helpful

bettyswolloks

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 13:21
DaveR wrote:

Thanks bettyswolloka. So have you come across any of the dreaded moire? If so, in what circumstances? Any negatives about the 's' so far? What sort of ISO's do you go up to and still get good real world results (and if you could describe a little of what 'real world' means in what context might be helpful eg. 8x12 prints of portraits without loss of detail...)

Most of my photography goes unseen as it's of my two boys. This one was taken at iso3200.

And most of the time with the K7 I had to use flash, which drove everyone in the room up the wall. Now with the IIs and it's ability to focus in low light plus its ability to handle noise I can snap away with no grumpy half blind kids moaning at me The low light focusing ability is amazing, it can focus in almost total darkness which I found really useful at a recent family bonfire party. I cant comment on the printing side of things yet as mine is on the blink, but from past experience I would expect the image above to be perfectly fine at A4.
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

wasleys

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 15:31
Smeggypants wrote:
Can you tell the difference ( or say which is which ) at 3 feet away let alone 6 feet?

People seem to be avoiding this question but, for what it's worth, my answer is yes, I can tell the difference between the LH and RH images at 6 feet.

I first saw this post shortly after it was made last night. It was late and I was using a browser on an old laptop in the kitchen without my glasses. The RH Pentax image looked better to me in terms of sharpness and colour but I saw little difference in the Nikon pics.

Came the dawn I downloaded the pics and looked at them in GraphicConverter on a 19" monitor wearing my specs. In both cases the RH images appeared sharper and with a greater depth of colour. At about 5 feet (with a change of glasses) the better sharpness still seemed apparent. By 6 feet it was hard to see much difference in sharpness, but the difference in colour was there out to 9 feet or so at which point I was against the wall.

Now I don't know which camera took what, how relevant those obvious differences would be at normal size use or whether there was any variation in focus, exposure etc between the pairs which would invalidate the test. I'm answering the question asked about the images as presented. For the record I got new specs last month and, when wearing them, my eyesight is better than 'normal'.

While I was looking at the pics my wife was around so I sought her opinion. In both cases her response was immediate, she preferred the RH images in both pics because they "look as though they have more definition and the colour's better".

davidstorm

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 15:32
That image looks very clean for ISO 3200 Daz and the colour rendition is great. I doubt whether my K-5 with AA filter could equal that for ISO 3200. Maybe everyone's been focussing too much on whether or not the IIs is sharper than the variants with the AA filter? Maybe there are other 'real world advantages' of the IIs as well as increased detail? Your image above might suggest this, but before I conclude on this point I will add one more thing (I can hear Smeggy's reply ringing in my head before I type this): No conclusion can be reached unless we have an identical shot with a K-5 that has the AA filter!!!!

However, judging by some of the shots you have posted recently and also by feedback I have had from someone who owns a IIs and several 'normal' K-5's, the output from the IIs appears to be noticeably 'cleaner' and more detailed.

I'm sure this won't be the end of the debate!

Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Last Edited by davidstorm on 31/12/2012 - 15:32

Helpful

McGregNi

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 15:56
I think we should look at this another way - the AA filter has always been there to compensate for sensor technology limitations, ie: the production of moire under certain conditions. On the most modern and larger sensors (APS up) available now, technology has improved to the point that moire production is now limited to a reduced range of situations. So you can do away with the filter!

I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of my shiny new top of the range sensor unless it was absolutely necessary, as I'd feel I'm losing something! Just like with any given lens, or a filter on that lens, we will not see the best or worst of it in every shot - these differences will manafest themselves in differing conditions of lighting and subject material. Likewise the lack of AA filter will show its effect in differing situations.

The important quest for us now is surely to try and establish exactly what shooting conditions or subject materials would most consistently provide an improvement over what we already have, and also those conditions where the lack of the filter will still cause problems. Only when knowing this and considering your own photography can you choose sensibly.
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

bettyswolloks

Link Posted 31/12/2012 - 16:36
On moirť I can honestly say it's not an issue. I've just gone over the above image zoom at 3:1 in lightroom and I can't detect any in the clothing. I've only come across it once before and that was zoomed in to silly levels, I couldn't see it at normal viewing distances on the laptop so to my mind it wasn't relevant. Though I'm sure there will be a subject out there that can produce moirť almost every time, but for me so far its not a thing I give a 2nd thought to.
Hope this helps Dave
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

DaveR

Link Posted 01/01/2013 - 11:05
All the best for the new year everyone and thanks for your responses.

Thanks especially to bettyswolloka for your ISO 3200 shot and sharing you experiences.

I reckon I will go for a IIs.

Thanks too MrB, I like the idea of selling my K-7 to upgrade to a K-5 second body.

bettyswolloks

Link Posted 01/01/2013 - 15:08
DaveR wrote:
All the best for the new year everyone and thanks for your responses.

Thanks especially to bettyswolloka for your ISO 3200 shot and sharing you experiences.

I reckon I will go for a IIs.

Thanks too MrB, I like the idea of selling my K-7 to upgrade to a K-5 second body.

Glad to be of service Pal )
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
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.