K5II choice considerations - a new take

I've been offered some help by Smeggy, with links to review images for testing, so I'll grasp this opportunity to carry out some testing. I won't be buying a K5II, but I'll be looking in future for a new Pentax DSLR, and I guess it may have the same options - AA filter or not.

So.... here's how I see this issue, as much as I can place it into some logical context :

We have two choices, which provide a different initial input at capture - one (K5II) deliberately blurs the image by means of an AA filter, the other (K5IIs) does not.

With a blurred input (K5II) a compensatory action is applied in processing - this could be in-camera processing or a default deblur algorithm applied in a RAW converter program through the default camera profile for that program. (Then the user has the option to fine tune this in the software). This process is known in workflow terms as 'Capture Sharpening'. So for the K5IIs you can eliminate this sharpening stage.

How significant is eliminating capture sharpening? As far as the actual work involved is concerned, not at all. The default profile for RAW conversion can simply remove it, or the user can simply reduce the amount applied directly. We should get basically the same initial capture result with no effort, so no gain there.

The important question is how this small difference in reaching a default capture sharpening state will affect the potential of the image to absorb additional defining, detailing or sharpening processes later on in the workflow - call it 'output sharpening'. This could have added value in two ways - 1) to produce a final output with detail and clarity qualities that exceed that (at any given size) of an equivalent image shot with the standard K5II and DeBlurred with Capture Sharpening, or 2) to produce a larger output (say a print) without any further loss of quality beyond the maximum achievable from the equivalent image shot with the K5II.

If we can answer that question then we have a basis to decide on the value for money equation, and / or the 'risk of moire' equation, all depending on our own personal output needs, or desires!

Considering all the above, looking at this up front, I'm going to throw caution to the wind and claim that in my view, unless you are going to be pushing the boundaries of output (my No1 & 2 above), then the differences at capture stage between the two (allowing for the default compensating DeBlur algorithms applied at Capture Sharpening stage to the AA filtered image) will not be significant to the majority of users.

As far as the second part goes - what is the potential for increased clarity / size and quality at the output stage - then we have to run shots through our own individual workflow, using our standard tools, and attempt to compare the results with identical settings, and then push the boundaries to see if you can get further with the K5IIs files without quality loss.

I'll try and do this to some examples and get back with the results! In the meantime let me know what you think of all this reasoning

I thunk you have that spot on, i look forward to seeing the results....

Cant imagine what the outcome will be

As discerned by the previous poster, bettyswollocks, it sounds like the outcome has already been decided!

We are all wasting our time on this, please see my last post on the previous (9 page:shock thread.

Most people on here have already made their minds up, the odd(?) thing is that virtually all of the people saying there is 'no benefit' don't actually own a K-5iis and most of the people convinced there is a benefit do own and use one regularly! I know which set of people I would listen to. Nigel (McGregNi) doesn't even have a K-5!

I appreciate the time and trouble being taken here in an attempt to provide useful information, but it is actually serving no useful purpose and is probably causing confusion. if you want a K-5iis, buy one, if you don't want one, don't buy one! If I were buying another body it would be a K-5iis (in the current model line up).

I won't add any further comment.

Best wishes
David

I know its a long post - but please read it fully. I have not said there is 'no benefit' full stop. I have made a reasonable 'pre-test' assumption only on the starting point files - that is the input - not the output potentials -please try and understand that - based on the facts of what we're starting with in technology terms.

If I make any conclusions on the output potential after I try out my own personal workflow, I am yet to report on that.

I think it too individual a choice to simply rely on the experiences of the odd user. Nor can you realistically expect to go into a camera shop, take a few snaps and be able to judge. I believe it is fair to say that this is a new way to consider it - 'A New Take'. Thats why I have not just continued it on from previous discussions. No, of course I don't have a K5 - that is irrelevant in this context, as has been pointed out by others elsewhere, we can get test images from the web to work with.

If those who have already made the choice no longer see there is any point to it, that's OK - you don't have to participate. This is for those of us who have an interest in this new choice, a division of technologies, which will continue to be offered I expect well beyond the K5 series.

David, your personal experiences and opinions on the output of your cameras continues to be informative, if coupled with info on your particular processing. But workflow and what we want from our shots is entirely personal. Throwing these considerations into the mix is absolutely serving a useful purpose I think.

I absolutely have not said that

I'm afraid claiming people who don't own the camera in question have no authority to make a judgement on the pictures taken with said camera is no argument.

It doesn't matter if Nigel doesn't own a K-5IIs or K-5, or even own a camera at all. What he does have in his possession are RAW files taken with the cameras in question.

Given the nature of digital distribution the RAW files are exactly the same bit for bit regardless of whether one has the actual camera in their possession.

Given his meticulous analytical mind and a passion for conveying that analysis in detailed essays I think Nigel is the perfect person to do a comparison of the K-5II and K-5IIs images.

Me? I just looked at the images, saw a tiny difference between them which I personally didn't think warranted the extra cost of the IIs and as a result in previous threads I was accused of being either drunk, needing new specs, new monitors and most incredulously told that actually looking at the pictures wasn't enough to discern the differences between the output from the cameras, by those clearly upset that my comments were some kind of insult to their purchasing decision.

Even though I've already made my choice, I'm still interested in your take on it. It's not a waste of time at all IMO. It's all fun and that's what it's all about isn't it?

I for one am looking on with interest as I purchased my K5ii purely based on cost, ie what her in doors tells me.

So because I did what I was told and saved a few pounds have I in turn missed out on something or nothing.

For now the cost difference is quite big. Along with the image defects that an AA filter is designed to limit, it means there is some serious weighing up to do. This is not the same as the more common choice of simply deciding between the 'top of range' model and the one just beneath it. These two cameras do not stack up against each other in that manner. Its a whole new ball-game in terms of the issues we need to to think about, and so I'm saying it needs a whole new way of thinking about it

Apologies for those who are waiting for some conclusions on the '2nd' part of the workflow chain I've outlined above - that is the output results of my particular workflow. Tonight I'm out and I don't have the network capacity to download the RAW files from the DPreview website. But I'll get them tomorrow and start to work with them.

If anyone has identical images from the K5 & K5IIs and would like me to try and make a comparison, you are welcome to send a PM.

That is the key issue and the reason I upgraded from the 7 to the iis. I know I would have doubted my choice if I'd chosen the ii, so I had to opt for the sharper option.
With no regrets, except Pentax have included a cheap, poor quality neck strap. My previous neck strap on the 7 is still almost perfect after over 100,000 images shot, the iis neck strap is already fraying and I've only had it a couple of months!

I think that this is a fascinating idea, and am interested in seeing what comes out. Nigel did a great overview of the Pentax Digital Camera Utility, which now serves as my main RAW processor for shots taken with my 'classic' K-5 (which is a marvellous machine that you would have to prise from my cold, dead fingers). I routinely additionally use the unsharp mask in Photoshop on my 'keepers' and had thought that this was a method of restoring some of the sharpness that the AA filter takes out. This might be a bit simplistic(!) so I look forward to seeing Nigel's output.

Maybe it's obvious (it hasn't been referred to so far), but comparisons can only really be valid if the same lens is used for pictures taken with and without an AA filter? Doesn't matter if it's the kit lens or a Limited prime, you can only compare the results if taken through the same glass. Apples and oranges otherwise.

Go Nigel!

For what it's worth, I seem to remember noting the other day that the new Q7 will be without an AA filter so maybe Pentax have already decided the future for us. I'd have thought the smaller sensor would be more in need of the filter but it seems not.

It does make sense that if you put something even slightly fuzzy between the lens and the sensor it must have some affect on the image. You can't put back into an image what wasn't there in the first place, so if it is missing micro contrast, it will always be missing it. Whether it has any effect in real world images is another matter of course, but theory seems to say it should.

John K

Indeed. had it been £20 difference then it would make little sense not to go for the IIs, but then with such a price difference then maybe it wouldn't make sense for Pentax to have two different models