K5II choice considerations - a new take

I can't afford either camera, so from that point of view whatever the outcome of the comparison, it is purely academic. However it is an interesting question to ask.

Nikon have got the D800 and D800e and it is likely as already stated that these twin pairings are likely to be a permanent feature of future model releases. Pentax particularly have long extolled the 'virtue' of minor, incremental features being justified by a slight adjustment to the model identifier and from a marketing point of view it can be highly profitable IF the customer can be persuaded that the small difference is worth the extra cost.

My personal view is that in this case the difference in price between K5II and K5IIs
should only be about £50 or so (assuming that one is 'better') but i've no idea what the difference is on the production line. Is it £5, or £10 or £50? Historically, going back 20+ years to the early days of VHS/SVHS and 8mm/Hi8 camcorders i remember reading a quote from a Sony afficionado in one of the camcorder magazines that he had been told that the production cost of most of the 'extra' features that differentiated very similar Sony camcorder models was only about 20-30p per 'extra', say £1.50 - £2 per step up to the next model which might have been £50-£60 more expensive in the shops.

On a slight tangent, if i could choose a couple of 'upgrades' to be introduced on the next 'Plus' model, I would suggest a tiltable LCD or even tilt/swivel but of even greater interest would be full control of camera by wired and/or wireless link
from a PC/ Apple Mac/ tablet. Full tethering with robust software included in the box and a couple of different lengths of cable included. I WOULD pay an extra £50- £75 for a K30 Plus with these features.

I agree.

All the DPReview shots used the smc Pentax D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro (as shown in the exif data in each file).

Philip

This isn't quite the same thing. It's referring to enabling extra electronic features, which are indeed very low cost.

In the case of the K-5 II and IIs there is a physical difference. A smaller production line has to be run where the AA filter is replaced by a plain filter glass. It's no doubt the smaller run that causes the increase in price. Plus of course the promotion and distribution of what amounts to a different model.

However, the most relevant point is that it is more expensive, which is the reality of it.

.... plus the profit versus units predictions. Sometimes you can sell less units at a higher price and make more money. It's for this reason it wouldn't be good business practise to sell the IIs for only 10% ( if for example it cost only 10% more to produce ) if they predict they'll just as many at 25% higher, or slightly fewer at 25% higher resulting in a higher overall return

Surely it would also be dependent on the glass you're putting in front of the sensor? If you have a couple of non professional zooms and a prime or two of older vintage for example perhaps you may be in for a rude awakening with the 'S' type sensor as it may well highlight any lens shortcomings and look less sharp sans AA filtering. If you have some exceptional zooms i.e. DA* or FA* caliber along with some good to exceptional primes then the 'S' should in theory kick in and add something extra to the returned image sharpness wise.
Really you have two choices, suck it and see yourself or find a set of RAW images taken with a K-5II and K-5IIS along with something like a DFA50 Macro. Then have a good hard honest look at the shots you're taking, the kit you have and whether or not the K-5II or (S) will be the preferable option for you.

There's a GBP60 difference between the II & IIs at B&H. The IIs is GBP698 and the instant rebate offer ends at end of June so maybe something new....a filter-less, mirror-less K5 III or K3 Mk I?

Best regards

I don't think that's entirely right. Without the AA filter the images should always be sharper no matter what lens is used, however if the difference is visible at all it is likely to be more visible with higher quality lenses. Taking the argument to extremes - if you use a pinhole as the lens you aren't likely to see any difference in the image resolution at all no matter what sensor is used.

Same model of lens perhaps, but same example?

Same model is fine, but same sample can be tricky, depending on when the review samples arrive. For example, the K-5 II and IIs were received at EPZ several weeks apart, so when I did the IIs report it was very difficult to remove all variables.

However, it didn't take long to establish what I wanted to know for my own future purposes.

By the time people have agreed to disagree or agree about the K5ll & K5lls benefits, Pentax will have no doubt released the next model. If they release two versions of the next model I think the debate will continue.

If you own a K5ll and you know its a great camera, there is no need to justify it against the K5lls. If you own a K5lls why worry about the people justifying their K5ll.

We all like things for different reasons and spend money in different ways.

With regard to the RAW files, the editing in relation to these files is not clear cut either. People edit images in different ways and some are better with Lightroom or Photoshop than others. In the end the final result is what should be important be it print or in electronic form from either a K5ll or a K5lls

Could this post be one example of several others in the threads on this theme that seem to indicate a lack of both understanding and empathy? Some people either have to be, or choose to be, careful regarding the way they spend their money. For those people the extra £160 (almost 25%) for the IIs over the II might be a big sum to consider. That is not only why discussions like this are important, but also particularly why Raw comparison files, recorded with scientific rigour, need to be made available as evidence, so that potential buyers can process them and consider for themselves the significance of any final image differences.

Philip

Philip, good point.

I do think that Pentax themselves should be doing more to justify the price difference between the two models. There isn't exactly a wealth of information at ones's fingertips to peruse and make a judgement one way or the other as to whether it is worth it or not.

In reality when you break down the arguments for and against, people are being asked to pay a significant amount more for less (in terms of product). From what has been said already it appears that the sensor on the 's' is actually simpler because it lacks a filter. If this is the case then Pentax should be providing the 'better' but simplified filter (assuming it is actually 'better') as the de facto new standard and including it for the same price as charged for the K5 II. This means that they can then save costs by doing away completely with the K5II as there would be no need for it and just selling the K5IIs.

Have I understood this correctly...or am I missing something?

You're missing that there is a filter to replace the AA filter, otherwise focus would be off. It's a clear filter, but obviously coated as per the original.

It's been very well documented in tests on the internet and in magazines, covering Pentax and Nikon but also many new cameras that also have no AA filter. The Pentax Q series and the Ricoh GR are two recent examples of cameras with no AA filter.

It seems to be the way things are going.

The AA filter has been standard for many years, across most digital camera ranges, as without it sensors are at risk of recording visable defects when shooting certain subjects with closely woven fine repeating patterns - often on clothing materials. This defect is known as moire.

But the AA filter applies a blur effect,'unsharpening' the image. This breaks up the patterns somewhat and restricts the moire. But we start out with more blurred image. This is conpensated for by sharpening either at capture point in camera, or in PP in RAW conversion.

Sensor technologies have been improving, and also larger sensors may be less at risk of recording moire. So some makers have now offered a camera model without the AA filter, so no blurring at capture point. This eliminates the Capture Sharpening stage of any workflow. The debate and testing here is about the significance of this in relation to how we translate this into quality terms at output stage.

Removing the AA filter isn't going to appeal to all potographers because there is a slightly higher risk of moire. So it makes sense to offer the K5iis as an option. And the reason the price is higher is partly to pay for having a second line of cameras being produced. And partly because, in basic terms, Pentax can get away with charging slightly more, because there's a demand.

I'm sure in terms of the actual cost of the components going into the camera, it makes no difference whether they fit an AA filter or not.

People who want that extra little bit of sharpness will pay a little bit extra. Compared to the money folks spend on lenses, it's trivial. People who are on the fence about what that extra 160.00 will get them - there are plenty of samples out there to pixel-peep. And if you are still in doubt, just go for the cheaper option.