K5IIs, how good then?

He He
I heard a rumour that the new one was going to use a new Sony Sensor, wonder if it's the 20.1Mp one in the A58? I'd be quite pleased if they backed off a little from 24, I briefly tried a Sony A77, now I know Sony doesn't do Noise reduction well but frankly it was a gritty monster!
Not everyone would agree though...

Sorry John, I've just realised where I am and I've mentioned Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Sony!
Sooo...

Panasonic, Olympus, Leica, Hasselblad, Samsung, Sigma, Oh and Ricoh (Last one is allowed? :wink...

Pick up and use an Alpha 99, I was shocked at how good it is and am edging to upgrade my Maxxum 7D to one, now thats a quantum leap forward by any standard.

Best regards

I did use a K-5IIs before deciding which to buy out of the 2 newer K-5's and have to say imo there was a difference but it's so insignificant as to be not worth the extra outlay. Hence I bought the II and saved a bit of cash.

Each to their own though ....

Knowing you though Jules I would buy the II as it's less cash to lose when you change brands again.

Bwaaahhhaahhhh!!!

All I want is to be happy with what I've got Mike, I actually did fully intend to come back into Photography with a K5 but my mate who used to run Jessops in the Metro Centre, persuaded me I needed a D600, to be honest the difference between a good APSC and a Full Frame (Still hate that term)isn't that much either, It may be the II and not the "s" model I end up with but if there is any more actual detail in the Sensor I want it as you can't make detail out of nothing, maybe the best way is to buy and try...

Well Jules, it's probably a very simplistic argument, but it strikes me that those saying the K-5 IIs isn't worth it are invariably those who don't have one. Those saying it is worth it are invariably those who do have one.

You pays your money and takes your choice....

Good to see the needle is still stuck! Some people cant see a point in pencils as crayons do the same thing!
I've yet to hear of someone trade in their IIs for a II, or hear of someone who has gone to the trouble of spending their money on buying a IIs regret doing so. On paper the IIs should produce better results, and it does. On paper the IIs should produce finer detail, and it does. The paper I mention is made by hahnemuhle And before the same people start bleating on, my neighbour HAD the II and we did a simple test and printed the resulting image's out and gave those image's to our respective wives, and they both picked the same image's, the same image's that we had both decided were the better all round image's. He rang SRS not too long after and got a good deal on trading in his II against a IIs.

Going back to the food analogy, I guess some people out there will read a recipe and decided then a there that it tastes horrible. Now would you take their word over the word of someone who went to the trouble of actually eating and tasting that recipe? I know we don't all have the same taste's, but in general we do don't we? Do you like cheese?

From my research there seems to be a view that a shot taken with a K5II + pp is the equal of the same shot taken with a K5IIs without pp.

I felt the UK price premium for the IIs was a con so I bought a K5II simply because it was cheaper than the K5IIs by some margin.

Are the same shots straight out of the IIs better than the II (no pp)? In my view, yes.

Doesn't the quality of the lens stuck on the front make a difference? I would have thought getting a better quality lens would be as important as a new camera. A kit lens is still a kit lens although I've seen some good snaps taken with one.

I got a IIs simply because there was a barely used one for sale on here with 18 months of guarantee left for just £20 more than a II. Whether I would actually have noticed the difference between a II and a IIs is highly debatable, but what I can say is that the IIs is a Himalayan step up from my K20 (which I loved)!! It's a very individual choice as to whether the IIs is worth the not insignificant extra cost over the II.

I'm a little concerned that my lens collection is now somewhat outclassed by the camera - but if I can capture images that I am happy with, then camera and lenses will be doing the job that I have them for! At present I am delighted with it!

The food analogies posted here seem totally inadequate.

For a fair comparison of two examples of the same food dish, one would need to actually taste the final plated product from each recipe. For a fair comparison of the II and IIs, one would need to actually be allowed to see the final printed photos from each camera.

It seems to me, from evidence made available for us to see, that comparing the images seen from the II and IIs would be analogous to comparing the flavour of a dish made using mineral water with exactly the same dish but made with pure water.

Philip

It all boils down to who makes the best waffles!

Mmmm Waffles

I actually said that the IIs does produce a slightly sharper output but that for the actual difference it was not worth the extra cash to me.

Do you not think that with all the money I have invested in Pentax glass I would have paid the extra couple of hundred quid it would have cost me at the time if I thought it was so much better?

Anyway I made a quantum leap in the sharpness department today and it cost me the princely sum of £2 ... and I mean a HUGE leap in sharpness.

Went out with the wife this morning and after noticing a few problems with my eyes I bought a pair of reading glasses ... I am absolutely gobsmacked at the difference in my pictures on the laptop.

Straight swap .. my K-5II for the D600?

Mind you, then I would have to think about Nikon lenses