K5IIs, how good then?

No! I much prefer just letting other people do all the work. And it doesn't sound like fun Do I really have to?

So you don't want to explore it then ?

.

If you insist then, I suppose I must... Truth is I don't have much confidence in my own scientific abilities for this sort of thing. I imagine the variables are considerable.

Strikes me that to have any meaning to an individual, and then to inform that persons buying decision, that you'd have to apply some kind of comparative testing using tools and methods that you are familiar with. But I am concerned that this limits the value to other people, and so the test would have not much significance.

For example, in my case, I don't use any PS output sharpening - nothing I do in this respect to prepare my images for view is termed 'sharpening' at all. I guess the principles are similar, but the particular combination of 'definition', 'Detail' & 'DeBlur' filters that I like to use picked from a range of different softwares is not something that other photographers are going to replicate or be able to apply to their own workflow.

But on a purely personal level then I guess it might be worthwhile. The big question is - what is the best measure to establish that might give a meaningful conclusion and a practical benefit?

I'm not insisting at all, I was just trying to help as you seemed interested.

Boy have I opened a can of worms
Not just on here either, Mrs Jules got wind of what I'm proposing and is not a happy bunny!

This can has been opened for some time, you're not responsible for that! I am interested in us all having some clearer thoughts and evidence for any future buying decisions - for me, I'm won't be in the market for a K5IIs, but I might be buying a future Pentax DSLR where the choice exists for AA filter or not - and if I'm lucky it'll be bigger as well

I'm up for some testing, and Smeggy has been so very kind to offer his helping hands, so I'll grasp them and get on with some comparisons.

I'm starting a new thread on this . Look out for it, 'K5II vs s considerations - a new take'

I think ken rockwell sums up the aa or not to aa when he compared the d800e


"The D800 is for making pictures, while the D800E is for counting pixels."

Isn't that a "Wish I'd said that" statement.

Taking up the challenge, using the DPR Raw test image files, default ACR conversion, and minimal sharpening of the K-5ii image, these are crops at 100% -

K-5ii



K-5iis



These are equivalent to viewing the entire images as 42 inch prints. The only significant difference appears to be enhanced moire in the iis image.

Has anyone else had a go?

Philip

I really think we are all wasting our time on these comparisons; as has been said many times already, comparing images on the web does not and can not indicate any 'real world' benefits. I also think that the statement quoted by Gary (Cabstar) above is a load of rubbish when it comes to the K-5IIs versus the K-5II. Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying here; I am not meaning to infer that Gary talks rubbish as he clearly does not, I am only referring to the quote he has provided and putting this into context with the K-5IIs and K-5II discussion. Both cameras are 'for making pictures' regardless of anyone pixel peeping or not.

For what it's worth, I'm absolutely sure that most K-5IIs owners don't spend their time pixel peeping their images; I certainly don't do this; I simply haven't got the time to waste. What I do is look at my images on my (very good) full HD screen, both as I'm processing them and afterwards, and also occasionally make prints on my high resolution Epson printer. I can categorically say (without any pixel peeping) that the resulting images look better from the K-5IIs than they do from the K-5 Mk1 in real world use (I don't have a K-5II). When I say they look better, I mean they just look sharper, crisper, more vibrant and these are fair comparisons because I shoot with the same lenses on both cameras so I have the ability to judge this. BTW all settings are identical on both bodies, so there is no possibility of any processing differences, unless Pentax have introduced something automatic we are not aware of. I also have 6 months of heavy usage, thousands of images shot, processed and reviewed to base this upon.

This is the last I will say about it as I think the subject is now completely worn out and before anyone asks, the answer is 'no I will not be providing any comparison images'!

Best wishes
David

There will be no apology from me if my previous post has irritated or offended anyone. It was produced in response to the perfectly reasonable enquiry,
"I have wanted to explore the question of whether you can reproduce the same output effect from a standard K5 simply through additional or differing sharpening methods?",
and using a scientific approach to the problem. Scientists often process scientific data from other researchers to inform their own conclusions. It is disappointing that we don't seem to have more data to work with, from several different sources.

Philip

Hello Philip, please don't think I was criticising you as this is not the case. I was simply putting my point of view on what has been a very long thread, preceded by several other very long threads, all of which have been going round in circles and getting nowhere!

Regards
David

I am hoping that if people take on board the 'New Take' on it that I have articulated on the new thread, we will start to get somewhere. It is absolutely essential that we clarify the distinction between the Input stage and the effect of capture sharpening at that stage, and how that process (or lack of) can affect the Output potentials. Remember, we only get out what goes in.

I ask people to take a look at my reasoning in the new thread and see if it might help in terms of how you consider the options.

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/k5ii-choice-considerations---a-new-take-4...#comm_465325

Please don't double post on the same subject, it will start to split the replies across two threads.

Your new thread is already out there, so I'd ask you to concentrate on that one.

Many thanks.

I disagree. The sensors don't change and starting taking pictures differently when you take them to different locations.

These comparison shots were done in the real world. I find it odd that you keep telling us that we can't get any meaningful comparison from looking at other people's K-5IIs pictures ( i.e the one's that were shot specifically to avoid entering any other variables into the equation ), but we should get a meaningful comparison from your thousands of pictures

You have indeed told us this several times, however I distinctly remember you claiming their to be a huge difference moments after you received your K-5IIs, and based upon only a few shots

The sensor doesn't change the way it takes pictures from the 3rd shot to the 30,000th shot.

Again I fully respect your decision to subjectively quantify those differences and also respect you to defend your purchase.