K5IIs versus K5

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

thanks david, that sums it up nicely.....and btw. nice photo, glen coe...isn't it?

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

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

Cheers
David

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

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.

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.

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

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

--