Positive K-5iis review

Here is another K-5iis review, and a very positive one as such:

http://www.neocamera.com/camera/pentax/k5iis/review

Bjørn

It certainly is an encouraging review.

Credit to the chap also for what he states in the final paragraph when considering the price the K-5's go for today:

"The difference in price can easily make up for a better lens."

He presents a balanced argument for all of the flavours of the K-5 today.

'LCD too left'

What does that mean???

What if you already have the best lenses??

It does look promising though

Well, yes, should you be in that position it might not apply to you!

I think its encouraging a reviewer has taken this approach because it really helps to put a spotlight over the Pentax stable in a much more general way. Drawing some attention on the original K-5 means Pentax have quite a few angles covered today. Interesting times.

I agree. I myself purchased a standard K-5 some weeks ago, and I believe the upgrade from K20D is massive. But I am happy that Pentax have improved an already excellent camera with the two upgrades/new models. It is indeed exciting times for Pentax

Bjørn

Great review but that last sentence means there is no reason for me to move on from my K-5 MKI.

Maybe it's me but this is the first time since owning a Pentax DSLR that I haven't felt the urge to upgrade at all .. infact I find both cameras quite uninteresting. (never thought I would say that).

That's fine, but don't you find the trend towards having no AA filter interesting? It could prove to be the way for the future and I find that interesting enough in itself.

Yes, and sensibly they retained the base model number as 5, so it is clearly an 'upgrade option' and wider choice within the same main camera category. If the new models had been released with an entirely new number designation, then that could have been a disappointment and seen as just try-hard marketing.

What needs to be highlighted of course, is the fact that the new AF features and the AA filter removal on the 's' model, place this new camera on a higher footing in performance comparison terms with competitors offerings.

I'm with Mike on this. Sure the removal of the AA filter is 'interesting' but in practise it's made hardly any difference to the IQ.

The extra resolution only really being worth it on images that are printed or viewed full size, or heavily cropped.

Nothing in these K-5II or K-5IIs to make me upgrade my K-5MkIs either.

Not even the '-3ev' AF functioning? That's practically moonlight isn't it?

It'll depend on where an individual is coming from and where they need to get to with their shots, and how much money they can easily burn through without a worry.

I'm interested in some more testing / user feedback on the real AF perfomance gains in the field. As far as the AA filter issue, I have long suspected that the higher 'resolution' out of the 'box' will only either gift you less sharpening work in PP, or (as Smeggy suggests) get you bigger printed output that retains acceptable sharpness without too much PP sharpening (and risk of artifacts creeping in).

Yes, and for me that's the point. I do make large prints. If I only shot images for the web I wouldn't be thinking about it.

Have a look at the comparison review over on the other side...
seems like the AF performance is only significant in low light. Still, could be worthwhile for some people.

link

I was wondering, is this higher low light Autofocussing still fully dependant on thE green AF assist lamp, or does the system respond better even without using the light?

[quote:3496ace15f="Smeggypants] I'm with Mike on this. Sure the removal of the AA filter is 'interesting' but in practise it's made hardly any difference to the IQ.[/quote]I thought there had been forming a fair consensus that the increased 'resolution' was mostly 'there to see'.

That's a little disappointing about the af upgrade.

Every time I think I want the new mk iis a review puts me off and leaves me heading towards the d600.

Will have to see when I actually get one in my hands to try....

You see, I never really get the suggestion that if one camera brand cannot offer a particular feature or quality improvement at a particular time, that this would be the sole reason for getting a camera by another maker. I mean, we're not just talking about a camera here - there are entire systems involved.

Unless an individual has (for some reason) built up or obtained a collection of system items from 2 different brands, then a jump from one to the other must surely involve completely unjustifiable expense?

To be fair though couldn't you argue the the lens used has the lions share of that capability rather than the body.