K-5IIs - more discussion

OK, as promised, here are the images shot at ISO6400. Once again I can confirm that all settings on each camera were identical and that no post processing has been carried out on either image, other than a white balance adjustment to make sure both are exactly the same colour temperature. Settings used were ISO6400, 1/20th shutter speed, manual aperture at F4, manual focus using live view at x10 to ensure critical focus accuracy, 2 second self timer, tripod.

K-5 Mk1



K-5IIs



Again, I would be interested in any comments. Just to make it 100% clear, I'm posting these for the benefit of anyone considering upgrading from a Mk1 K-5 to a K-5IIs and who wants to see some actual IQ comparisons with no tampering, on an image that displays a good tonal range and colour range, along with subjects that illustrate relative sharpness. It's not scientific, but I think it is interesting and has clearly provoked some comment. BTW, I think the exposure on both of the above is slightly less than ideal compared to the first ones posted, but the K-5 and the IIs images at 6400 have the same exposure so the comparison is still valid.

Edit: A bit more info to assist: the focussing was directed on the round section of the 'Photoshop' DVD where is says 'Volume 2 Part Four'.

Regards
David

I'm sure David will tell us, but it looks like the camera in the photos is not in the same location in both shots. The 2nd shot has the camera slightly closer to the camera taking the shot, thus making it more out of focus.

It may be best to ignore the position of the camera as this is the only variable in the two shots. The boxes have been left in identical positions, but the camera has been moved. I included it in the image as a test for dark areas / shadow detail. I still think the IIs image is noticeably sharper, brighter and has more shadow detail?

Regards
David

But the '00FG' on the front of the flash box and 'Pentax' on the grey box look sharper in focus to me on the K5 MK1 image

It's clear to me after looking at both 6400 images that the two cameras are producing clear differences! The main intent originally was to test noise between the two (at Dr. O's request), but what I'm a little puzzled about is that there seems to be some minor DOF differences?

Anyway, I'm 100% certain that the IIs shots are noticeably 'cleaner' for the given ISO's and also from other tests I've done that the IIs is sharper. For me, this is important because less processing will be required, therefore less additional artefacts will be introduced, therefore final result will be better with the IIs! That's all I'm bothered about.

Cheers
David

On the second set of shots they are but in the first set it's the other way round.

Last ones, these are at ISO12800.

K-5 Mk1



K-5 MkIIs



In these, the camera is my K-x and is in an identical position in both pictures.

Regards
David

I fully respect and believe David's conclusions on the IIs. However I cannot see that this is illustrated by the images.

I do not mean to be a spoiler, but I can't see significant evidence that one camera is sharper than the other. As others have noted it depends where you look within the image. If focus is not absolutely identical, like for like comparisons are hard to make.
Unless a camera boasts a phenomenal improvement, surely minor focusing discrepancies could account for most of the perceived difference.

Further to this, if it takes critical laboratory conditions to test and confirm differences, are the differences actually significant for real life shooting?

I am delighted that many seem to rate the IIs and can discern the difference.
However, for a strictly amateur individuals like myself, I reckon my own skills, technique and ability to obtain ( or even recognise) critical focus would make more difference than the camera body.

For me the small gain in sharpness out of body can be achieved in lightroom very easily without detriment to the image.

I still see no reason to get the mkiis, in fct my next purchase will be another mkii

Hi Gary, I'm glad you are delighted with the K-5II, but I managed to buy the IIs for the same as a standard MkII would have cost, so nothing to lose.

Your images don't need any help from what I've seen!

Best wishes
David

Yes, you are right. Mike makes a good point after.

I'm not sure these examples prove anything one way or another, David. I wish they did. Or do I?

I have a K-r at the moment. I know any form of K5 would be an improvement. I suspect that a K5I would be better value for me given the 2nd hand price at the moment. Or just wait for something better to come along!

Thanks David

Now at the same price as a plain mkii would influence my decision to purchase one as I would have both then

I think this just about sums it up.

Every comparison I have seen has been done with static subjects taken on a tripod with mostly perfect conditions. As we all know this is very rarely the case and the sharpness difference can be cancelled out by the smallest movement (as we have seen from the 2 sets of pictures in this thread).

The gain in ISO and dynamic range performance however is something that can make a difference in real life shooting but to be honest I cannot see anything between the 2 cameras in these shots ... although having the original raw files may help in that respect.

I can't answer this Mike until I've used the IIs for a considerable period of time. I suspect the differences will be apparent in some images more than others, for example I think macros will benefit.

I do see quite a marked difference in the noise levels and shadow detail between the images I've posted - look at the red writing on the boxes for example and there's a lot more noise in the Mk1 images. I would expect landscapes to benefit from the greater shadow detail, but time will tell and I'll know more in a few weeks. Also, what you can't see are some prints I've done and these show differences more clearly than can be seen in the images in this forum post.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and comments - this clearly still splits opinion! Whatever the truth is, both the IIs and the standard K-5 are great cameras.

Regards
David

Thank you for your posting these images David but -
With those who see focusing differences affecting the images - I agree.
"I'm not sure these examples prove anything one way or another" - I agree.
"I cannot see anything between the 2 cameras in these shots" - I agree.
"Whatever the truth is, both the IIs and the standard K-5 are great cameras" - I agree.

Philip