KII vs KIIs


amilner

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 07:35
DP review have posted their test photos for the KII and the KIIs - and the comparison it comes up with on the opening page (jpg at iso 100) illustrates very clearly that the KIIs gives noticeably higher definition at the expense of noticeable moire.

See here
Tony Milner
Super A, ME Super, MZ6, K5II, Ricoh GR & lenses from 8-500mm
www.amilner.org www.flickr.com/photos/tonymilner

johnriley

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 08:17
I'd like to try this for myself yet, because I don't know how the K-5 II image with suitable Photoshop sharpening will compare against the K-5 IIs with also whatever the appropriate sharpening (if any) is needed.

As with using different speeds of film though, it's not so much that any extra details are extracted from the subject (on a normal visual level rather than under a microscope) but that the same detail is recorded with crisper outline and higher contrast.

The behaviour of the human eye is such that the actual effect on the images overall has yet to be properly explored.
Best regards, John

R o b

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 13:47
From what I could see the moire is mostly confined to the bank notes. This isn't a complete surprise as the banks go to a lot of trouble to make their notes difficult to photocopy by making sure they cause moire.

It does seem to show up on a piece of cloth too, though the K5II shows it to some extent as well.

The grey cotton reel in the box under the bank notes shows the increased definition really well.

Thanks for sharing the link,

Robert.

CMW

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 15:01
After all the discussion about the s version, my expectation was raised somewhat above the reality, at least as shown in these studio shots. Looked at without enlargement, there is only the most marginal difference between the shots. Either I was expecting an unrealistic jump in definition or my eyes are showing their age -- probably a bit of both.
Regards, Christopher

ChristopherWheelerPhotography

cabstar

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 15:34
Trouble with that set up is that the lens is used at a wide angle, so there is a lot of detail lost I think, which will not show a lot of difference between the bodies.

The k-5 (mk i) looks brighter to me???

I cant wait to see some really good sharp head shots with the mk iis, the macro shots posted over the weekend look superb.
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

woodworm

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 18:42
The photo's were both shot with a 50mm f2.8 macro which is a prime lens.

I don't think I see enough advantage for the additional cost but would want to see more comparisons before spending my own money. I've been back and forth between the 2 for the past month or so

Smeggypants

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 18:53
amilner wrote:
DP review have posted their test photos for the KII and the KIIs - and the comparison it comes up with on the opening page (jpg at iso 100) illustrates very clearly that the KIIs gives noticeably higher definition at the expense of noticeable moire.


There's not enough difference to spot in a blind test. I can hardly tell the difference when I know which is which.
[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

McGregNi

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 20:24
I still think we need to get a consensus on what the actual practical benefits will be in purely output terms. Over on the other thread just before, John Riley made the point that the difference would only be significant on big printed enlargements, that it would have no significace for web images. Well, I've not seen any comparisons between any big printed enlargements, we mostly are looking at web images!

I've seen the difference on screen in some cases, but an important question is this - taking two test shots side by side, would I simply be able to make the one shot on the original K5 look the same as that shot on the K5IIs simply by opeing it in software and applying additional and expert sharpening techniques? Or is there something inherently superior in the K5IIs image that I could not reproduce in any way in software??
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

MarkTaylor

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 20:39
I still think the K-5II is my pick for second body. I haven't yet seen anything to convince me to shell out the extra cash for the 's'. It's the lower light capability of the AF unit I really want and there won't be any difference between the two on that score.
My Flickr Pentax K-5 K-5 II Sigma 8-16mm F/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD ASL SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F/2.8 ED [IF] SDM SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ED SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR Vivitar 100mm F/3.5 Macro AF Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2

cabstar

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 20:58
woodworm wrote:
The photo's were both shot with a 50mm f2.8 macro which is a prime lens.

I don't think I see enough advantage for the additional cost but would want to see more comparisons before spending my own money. I've been back and forth between the 2 for the past month or so

Thats a lot of detail for a 50mm to capture. I would still prefer to see a portrait shot with the mk iis...
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

McGregNi

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 21:53
Those Macro bug shots posted a few days ago taken on the K5IIs were convincing for sure. But it takes me back to my earlier thought - if I'm going consider it to be worth the money for this higher 'resolution', I need to know for sure that I couldn't just get the same result on a first generation K5 along with some fancy sharpening techniques in software.
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

cabstar

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 00:02
Those bug shots where very good.
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Algernon

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 10:17
I never realised that so many people must have 55 inch monitors
to be so concerened about cameras with the same sized sensors

On my humble 1280 pixel wide display I can't see any difference
between a shot taken on a K10D and a K-5

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

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

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 13/11/2012 - 10:24

johnriley

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 10:26
I've never seen a camera with a 55-inch sensor.

But seriously, it's print making where the difference can be seen. As for the web, my *istDS images still look absolutely fine. printed, we can tell the difference between all the developments of the DSLR.

We can also print books and magazines, which need the highest quality.
Best regards, John

Algernon

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 10:46
If that's the case people should be printing them to a minimum
A3 size
rather than pixel peeping

I've never seen anyone complain about the weak AA filter
on the K-5 causing any problems

I'm more concerned about the algorithm that a viewer program
uses to display my shots 1280 pixels wide.... they all seem to
be just a little bit better than useless I don't
suppose it's worth the software companies developing a decent
viewer.... nobodies going to cough up 50 for it when they
can get some junk for free or use the junk in Windows


-
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.