K5 IIs images

Some real samples from the IIs in this fellas flickr stream,
HERE

And here

No doubt, they mostly look really crisp. Is there any way of knowing if any type of software sharpening has been applied, or are we seeing the effect straight from the camera?

I'd be more interested in which lens was used, not that there's anything wrong with post-processing.

Sure, that'd be good to know. There's nothing to suggest its not a good quality lens that I can see. The pictures do look to me like ones that would, with a normal sensor, have had some PP sharpening done. So if they had not had this, then that would be showing us the effect of the removed filter on this new camera.

I'm guessing the point of this type of arrangement is to avoid the software sharpening, or at least significantly reduce it,and so provide enhanced image quality straight from the camera?

The 'somedaysgooddays' shots seem to be taken with the DA 12-24mm, well stopped down (f/8+). The makers data gets dropped on Flickr but the remaining data shows sharpness as 'hard' and contrast as 'high' on the few shots I'd looked at - eg here and here.

The second one is a good example since the far top of the side railings might be expected to show moire - beside some edge colour fringing there is little if any.

Hard to tell if the shots are sharper or better than a plain K-5 would take.

As for 'urarin' shots - something is badly up with his/hers settings or pp, they are quite cr*p.

Urban ins shots taken with fa77mm

Shame they're all well stopped down...

The K-5 IIs looks an interesting proposition. It's the sort of thing that would perhaps need living with for a while to appreciate fully its potential.

The purpose is to enjoy the increased resolution.

This is a better side by side comparison between ii and iis

link

Why would you buy a K5-IIs, fit a FA 77mm Limited lens to it, and then shoot JPG? It doesn't make sense to me. PEF/DNG image files hold much more detail and dynamic range than JPG's.

Thanks Cabs

That's a good comparison. I know it's subjective, but I see a slight improvement in detail in the IIs. I've seen much bigger differences by the AF not being properly calibrated for indiviudal lenses.

The II looks slightly defocussed against the IIs, but it's pixel peeping.

I suspect many K-5 owners could gain a similar if not greater increase in detail for free if they took the trouble to check and calibrate the AF on their lenses.


The "if it ain't broke don't fix crowd" are presumably the sort that also wouldn't buy a K-5IIs

Anthropologists would call it "conspicuous consumption". Pretty much the same reason people commute to work through the heavy London traffic in giant gas guzzling four wheel drives.

K.

Mannesty wrote:
Why would you buy a K5-IIs, fit a FA 77mm Limited lens to it, and then shoot JPG? It doesn't make sense to me. PEF/DNG image files hold much more detail and dynamic range than JPG's.

Well maybe if you were upgrading from a K-r with 50mm F, then you will still see what I imagine to be more detail and dynamic range even in JPEG!

Getting distracted into RAW/JPEG discussion will drag us away into a different territory, but going back to the II or IIs question, both Pentax and Nikon have clearly expected that the majority of users will go for the standard versions.

Is this just fear on their part that someone will manage to show some moire in a test and their sales will be decimated as a result? If the IIs was the only option we can be sure that someobody would do that, using some ludicrous subject matter. Or is it just that the extra resolution is truly only needed by photographers who produce billboard sized advertising shots, and for most users we are better off the an AA filter in place?

After all, our current pictuires are quite sharp and can sometimes even be too sharp, depending on how we process them.

It will be very interesting to see what the first tests bring.

The guy in the link I posted said it was really difficult to get moire to manifest under test conditions.

Smoggy is right of course there could be a lot of uncalibrated lenses and bodies out there.