K-5IIs - more discussion

The 5IIs does seem to offer greater sharpness -- and I'm happy to take David's evaluation of that via his own monitor and printer. There is bound to be some difficulty in demonstrating it definitively without the full file given the useful but still relatively small degree of difference involved. The issues for me would be whether i) the in-camera difference can't be all but eliminated in PP without much cost in terms of noise/artifacts; ii) the current price difference merits upgrade from K5 to the later model. I have no answer to the first, and I think the answer to the second (for me) is 'probably not'. There are other considerations and those frustrated by the K5's autofocus inadequacies will add that to the scales in making a decision.

Mike, I think your post above is a little rude if you don't mind me saying. There is clearly a lot of interest in this topic and people wouldn't still be contributing to it if they weren't interested.

I'm not sure how this can be true? It doesn't make any sense that you can make a blurred original image the same as a sharp original image simply by applying a sharpening algorithm. The last two I posted illustrate that by comparison there is some blurring on the K-5 compared to the the K-5IIs, however slight. Sharpening the K-5 image would obviously be possible but you could apply the same amount of sharpening to the K-5IIs image and it would still be sharper!

Regards
David

However the same arguments are being regurgitated and the same people who can see differences are seeing differences and those who say no are still saying no.

I feel the likelihood of anyone shifting sides is highly unlikely by this point and it seems a subject that will jsut rumble on and on and on with, as I say, no one switching opinions so is there any value in this ?

Someone earlier on already commented about this already having been done in another thread.

Just my view is all

If others wish to continue so be it .

No personal slight intended by the way.

None taken whatsoever Mike. Thanks for saying this though.

Regards
David

welcome

These latest images are helpful.

I don't think many people were saying that the IIs was not sharper ( be surprising if it weren't), I also believe that we did take David's word over which body provided most detail.

The debate was whether the original images illustrated this and the truth is that they did not.
This is not stating that the were not discernible differences between the appearance of the two sets, but exact point of focus, position etc were influences in this.

Like others, I was viewing the images on a high res ( 1080x1920) and calibrated screen, impartial and critical viewing could not support the claims.
The latest crops do illustrate the difference.

In the originals improved detail (like beauty) was 'purely in the eye of the beholder'.

I for one was certainly NOT having a go at David or the IIs. I just felt that supplied images did not prove the point and did not 'hold up in court'.
David's opinion is worth a great deal and valid, the test wasn't.

There are clear and obvious differences between the K5 and the K5IIs images in that post - but they look to me as though they result from differences in the point of focus. I can see nothing that suggests that one camera is producing images of significantly higher resolution than the other. If you can, can you please explain exactly where you see that?

To be honest, I'm not sure that the subject lends itself to this kind of critical analysis. To convince the doubters, I think you'll have to unequivocally nail focus. Maybe this is one situation in which a test chart might be helpful - or even photos taken of a steel rule at an angle of 45deg, so that close crops can be viewed at the points of critically accurate focus - even if those are in different places.

Andrew

+1 for what Andew said.

Most of the K5 photos aren't even in focus apart
from some lettering on the camera which has been moved
between the K5 and K5IIs shots anyway. I'm surprised that
so many people commentating can't see that

3D shots aren't tests of performance.... they are tests of
how well the tester can focus the camera that's all

You need a 2D shot of something with a lot of detail and to
use a 50mm lens at f/5.6.... The DOF with a 135mm at f/4
makes proper testing almost impossible. Your testing
the cameras and not the lens anyway.

I use Irish stamps which are cheap in collectors packs off ebay.
Focus needs to be spot on.

This shot was taken with a K-5 and Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4 at f/5.6
100ISO Distance 1250mm ( 25x FL ) Flash

100% Crop from unsharpened JPG




-

Now, I do know that my eyes need testing, something to do with my age no doubt.

But I have to say I have looked at the photos and I believe I can see a difference in sharpness between the K5 and K5IIs shots.

David has sparked an interesting debate!

What you say is unexecptionable, but greater sharpness isn't hard to conjure in the output of the older camera. I quite accept that that must also apply to the k5IIs, and that a sort of leapfrogging is perfectly possible. Beyond a certain level, though, it would be interesting to see whether the difference observable in the shots supplied would be so clearly maintained in, say, an A3 print, viewed normally, after a journey through Lightroom. A difference would be there. Seeing its degree would be interesting.

Have a look here LINK
Looks like someone can.
John

I couldn't give a monkey's step cousin twice removed about the normal test images of charts and the queen of hearts. So I'm grateful to see some real world output. Regardless of what anyone might think is the point of all this it has really helped me and I know a couple of others who were curious about the comparison. So thanks to David for his efforts.

The Digitalcamerinfo tests show that...

".... it’s clear that even the “Natural” JPEG color mode sharpens shots quite a bit, both through actual sharpening algorithms and with contrast adjustments. "

The also find that it's less noticeable in RAW shots.

So does that mean the older K-5 can just be tweaked in the
JPEG menus to give the same output as the K-5IIS?

They also found "confetti-like colored noise" in the
RAWs.


-