K5IIs versus K5


kingfisher

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 09:10
just wondering - did anybody upgrade from K5 to K5IIs? How do you find it? Would there be noticeable increase of details due to missing antialiasing filter? I found some quite mixed info on web and can't make my mind. I do like K5, especially its dynamic range is great for landscapes. I like shooting landscapes from tripod, but I wonder if K5IIs will provide me more clarity and more detail by any chance?

Chrism8

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 09:38
I still have my K5 as a back up, or the wife uses it, I suppose I noticed about a 5% increase in detail re the lack of antialiasing filter, for me thou, the low light focus and IQ is better.

I also think the autofocus is marginally quicker as well, whilst of no use on landscapes
Chris

www.chrismillsphotography.co.uk

" A Hangover is something that occupies the Head you neglected to use the night before".

-------------------------------------------------------------
K1 - Sigma 85mm F1.4, Pentax 150 -450 F4.5 / 5.6, Pentax FA 24 - 70 F2.8

Sigma 100-300 F4, Samyang 14mm F2.8, Sigma 70-200 F2.8,

K5iis - Sigma 17 - 70 F2.8, Sigma 70 - 300 F3.5/F5.6, Sigma 18 - 200 F3.6 / F4.5.
Last Edited by Chrism8 on 13/02/2016 - 09:40

Jonathan-Mac

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 09:43
When I was looking into it, though in the end I bought a K-3, the most important difference between the K-5 and K-5II was that the mark II fixed the focusing problems in certain light that a lot of people complained about.

I don't think the removal of the AA filter is such a big thing. My photos with the old K200D were very sharp and it had an AA filter.
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3 & K200D, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses

DrOrloff

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 12:37
I recall interminable discussion on this subject. I upgraded recently from the K5 to the K5IIs as my K5 is very well used so I wanted an insurance policy and K5IIs don't come up that often.

Is the K5IIs better? Imo, yes. Is there a noticable difference in resolution without the AA filter? Imo, yes. I also think that CA prone lenses are less CA prone without the AA filter.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined

kingfisher

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 19:00
thanks so far for replies, some useful info in it
jonathan - the k200d had the same ccd sensor as my old k10d, right? There is something about that ccd, that makes colours and clarity of photos shine.

stu62

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 19:39
i had a k5 which i wish i had never seen could not get on with it was cotumplatikg the k5iis but decided against it and tock the plundge and bought the k3ii best dicition i ever made it was a totally differant beast but well worth it so if i was you i would just skip the k5 series and go for the k3 series if budget allows

davidstorm

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 21:16
I was one of those involved in the long discussions about improvements the K-5iis offered over the K-5, particularly in IQ terms. Yes, it is better, yes it is sharper, yes the AF is great in low light and is a significant improvement over the K-5. I think the K-5iis is a Pentax classic, I don't think there is any debate now about this.

Is the K-3 better than the K-5iis? I think so, but the K-5iis is still a great piece of kit and runs the K-3 very close indeed.

Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

kingfisher

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 22:10
thanks david, that sums it up nicely.....and btw. nice photo, glen coe...isn't it?

kingfisher

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 22:13
stu62 - k3 is certainly great, but for me that 24mp might be too much. I'd rather go for lower resolution sensor and more better dynamic range for landscapes

davidstorm

Link Posted 13/02/2016 - 22:56
kingfisher wrote:
thanks david, that sums it up nicely.....and btw. nice photo, glen coe...isn't it?

Which photo are you mentioning? There's quite a few in my gallery!

Cheers
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

Smeggypants

Link Posted 14/02/2016 - 00:55
I have an original K-5 and a K-5IIs. I don't find any noticeable difference in "sharpness" from the K-5IIs compared to the original K-5

I was involved in the original elongated discussions about this and no one who claimed the K-5IIs was sharper, was able to provide any evidence of this.

K-5IIs has better AF, especially in Low light and was the reason I swapped one of my K-5's for a MKII version. Only reason I got an 's' was one came up at a good price, I would have been just as happy with a K-5II
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

SteveEveritt

Link Posted 14/02/2016 - 07:56
And during that discussion it was pointed out that there is a significant improvement in sharpness akin to upgrading from poor glass to DA* glass and that still stands true.
My Flickr link

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" (John Lennon)

McGregNi

Link Posted 14/02/2016 - 09:20
Someone may have pointed that out, but unlikely they were able to prove it or demonstrate it.

Of course there's a technical difference between the two outputs., without the slight blurring from the AA filter, but really, it's what happens after the image is captured, during each individuals unique processing workflow, that makes the real life difference. For the majority of common uses many standard processing workflows would simply equalise the results and remove any noticeable difference.

By this I mean the K5 file simply requires more sharpening, or better selective targeted sharpening, up to certain limits of course.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 14/02/2016 - 09:24

jemx99

Link Posted 14/02/2016 - 09:59
McGregNi wrote:
it's what happens after the image is captured.

And of course how well the image has been captured (skill, luck etc).

Algernon

Link Posted 14/02/2016 - 11:50
Too much pixel peeping going on! I can't wait for the moans about the K-5iiS being much sharper then the new K-1 FF when pixel peeped by a Pentax pixel peep expert

You are supposed to blur an image anyway before reducing the size....

http://therefractedlight.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/problem-of-resizing-images.html

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.