Positive K-5iis review


McGregNi

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 22:04
Yes, for a lot of people, but not for those who already have f1.4 primes, lucky people!
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

Smeggypants

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 22:49
Snootchies wrote:
McGregNi wrote:
Not even the '-3ev' AF functioning? That's practically moonlight isn't it?

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

There's also plenty of times where you want low light AF functioning indoors and the green light is either not powerful enough or intrusive.
[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

cabstar

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 23:49
McGregNi wrote:
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?

When the D600 was launched at 1900 I would have agreed but the price of that thing is falling like a brick, currently around 1500. In teh new year possibly even lower and encroaching into k-5 mk iis pricing territory.

I wasn't all that bothered about FF, I also never complained about the lack of Pentax FF but by the time Pentax bring out an FF I seriously think they will have missed the boat and if I go full frame Pentax then all my DA lenses will be useless anyhow and possibly depreciate in value pretty rapidly. So I think now is the time to consider my future brand choice very carefully.

As I see it the D600 apart from the FF, offers lower noise, twin SD slots, faster AF and a better flash system.

I love Pentax and I really wanted the k-5 mk iis to be everything and more than my current k-5 and I really do think I am going to be disappointed.
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

davidstorm

Link Posted 12/11/2012 - 23:59
From what I've read and the few 'real world' images I've seen so far (particularly the macros uploaded on here a day or so ago), I'm excited about the K-5IIs and I will be buying one sometime next year when prices have levelled out a bit. It appears to me that it will offer real benefits over a standard K-5 and and although it's 150 or so more expensive, I would bet that some deals will be had in 6 months or so.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

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

McGregNi

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 00:38
Yes David, I've also seen some convincing comparisons with clearly better definition from the 'S' version, assuming we can trust that what we're seeing is straight 'out the box'.

This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.

Hey - how 'bout we try it out - fancy a 'sharpening shootout' ?
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

Dave-L

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 04:40
McGregNi wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:

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?

Now that is exactly what makes it *interesting* to me.

Recently on Hallowe'en I tried to take available light photos of my grand kids by streetlight at one of their neighbour's front door, using a K-5 and my 100mm F2.8 at something like ISO 6400. The darned thing wouldn't focus properly - the street lamps were just a bit too far away and by the time I'd switched to manual everything, I'd missed the best shots.

K-5 II would have nailed it, I wish I'd had it. Yes the 50mm F1.4M might have have nailed it too if I had it with me (was a bit too far away though really) but you can't cart around every lens you have 'just in case' so the more the body can do, the better!
K3/K5/10-17fisheye/15mmDA Ltd/18-55WR/55-300DA/100DFAMacroWR/50F1.4M/200F4M/DA*200F2.8/DA*300F4/DA*50-135/DA*60-250/Mitsuki 400F5.6/others.
Last Edited by Dave-L on 13/11/2012 - 04:56

johnriley

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 08:28
To be fair Dave, the 100mm Macro wasn't the right lens for that job, a standard zoom would have been better.

I haven't had any problems with the K-5 in low light. If i can see to manual focus the K-5 can autofocus. The K-5 can be more accurate than me as well in those low light conditions. The K-5 II may well be better again, but that's just a bonus.
Best regards, John

Frogfish

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 09:04
McGregNi wrote:

This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.

There was this same debate with the D800 and D800E. I remember one blog where the writer had brought the D800 images up to par with those of the D800E after post processing. I don't think there is a conclusive agreement on this as a) it may depend on the subject and b) it more than likely depends on the skills and software of the person processing the images.

Though there is of course the argument that you don't need to do anything much to the D800E images and don't need expensive software and skills to get you where you want to be.

Moire is another valid though unrelated argument and the weaker AA filter cameras such as the 'S' and 'E' definitely show more in certain subjects.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

Frogfish

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 09:12
johnriley wrote:

I haven't had any problems with the K-5 in low light. If i can see to manual focus the K-5 can autofocus. The K-5 can be more accurate than me as well in those low light conditions. The K-5 II may well be better again, but that's just a bonus.

I use my K5 with the Sigma 10-20 (variable aperture) for interior shots - if I can see the subject in an unlit dark room (sometimes there is no electricity to the properties) then the K5 can focus on it. Clients are still happy with the results.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

mecrox

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 09:43
I'll be upgrading to a regular K5II from my present K5 which is one of the early ones and has seen two years of heavy use. It's already been in for refurb/repair once. I've had too many shots with focus troubles to want to continue with the autofocus on the original K5, if I can avoid it. The other forum has a shot from the K5IIs showing moire on some cacti in a landscape. That's persuaded me that the risk of moire is too high a price to say for an increase in resolution which, in most cases, won't really be missed and perhaps not even noticed. I think a weakness of the K5IIs is that it really shines in special situations where there is less risk of moire - cacti-free, er, landscapes or high-end macro, for example. But those are the situations in which a really dedicated person will probably be using a full frame camera anyway. For general use, leaving off the AA filter seems pointless. I think it's a gimmick to plug a gap in the Pentax product line and as time goes by K5IIs-shooters will be finding moire popping up in all sorts of unexpected ways. No one would be talking about the AA filter if there had been a new flagship camera from Pentax this autumn.
Last Edited by mecrox on 13/11/2012 - 09:51

Frogfish

Link Posted 13/11/2012 - 16:19
mecrox wrote:
For general use, leaving off the AA filter seems pointless.

It isn't left off - it is just a much weaker implementation, you can't leave it out altogether (same applies to the D800E).
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 13/11/2012 - 17:14

Dave-L

Link Posted 15/11/2012 - 00:56
johnriley wrote:
To be fair Dave, the 100mm Macro wasn't the right lens for that job, a standard zoom would have been better.

I haven't had any problems with the K-5 in low light. If i can see to manual focus the K-5 can autofocus. The K-5 can be more accurate than me as well in those low light conditions. The K-5 II may well be better again, but that's just a bonus.

'Twas all I had at the time though, apart from a 55-300 which would have been around F4.5 at the 100mm I needed from where I was, can't see how using that would have helped much. Sometimes you just have the wrong lens and then the more camera flexibility the better. It was pretty dark there.

No more cameras for me until this time next year though and by then, who knows what might be available!
K3/K5/10-17fisheye/15mmDA Ltd/18-55WR/55-300DA/100DFAMacroWR/50F1.4M/200F4M/DA*200F2.8/DA*300F4/DA*50-135/DA*60-250/Mitsuki 400F5.6/others.
Last Edited by Dave-L on 15/11/2012 - 01:02

Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/11/2012 - 02:37
Frogfish wrote:
McGregNi wrote:

This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.

There was this same debate with the D800 and D800E. I remember one blog where the writer had brought the D800 images up to par with those of the D800E after post processing. I don't think there is a conclusive agreement on this as a) it may depend on the subject and b) it more than likely depends on the skills and software of the person processing the images.

Though there is of course the argument that you don't need to do anything much to the D800E images and don't need expensive software and skills to get you where you want to be.

Moire is another valid though unrelated argument and the weaker AA filter cameras such as the 'S' and 'E' definitely show more in certain subjects.

Like the K-5IIs, the D800E only removes the AA filter though doesn't it? I cant' speak for anyone else, but I use my preferred software, Lightroom for far more than, just a bit of sharpening.
[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

Frogfish

Link Posted 15/11/2012 - 02:56
Smeggypants wrote:
Frogfish wrote:
Quote:

This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.

There was this same debate with the D800 and D800E. I remember one blog where the writer had brought the D800 images up to par with those of the D800E after post processing. I don't think there is a conclusive agreement on this as a) it may depend on the subject and b) it more than likely depends on the skills and software of the person processing the images.

Though there is of course the argument that you don't need to do anything much to the D800E images and don't need expensive software and skills to get you where you want to be.

Moire is another valid though unrelated argument and the weaker AA filter cameras such as the 'S' and 'E' definitely show more in certain subjects.

Like the K-5IIs, the D800E only removes the AA filter though doesn't it? I cant' speak for anyone else, but I use my preferred software, Lightroom for far more than, just a bit of sharpening.

They don't remove it Smeggy - it just has a much weaker implementation of it. From what I've read that is the only difference between the two (much like the D800 & D800E). I suppose it really depends on how much work in PP you need to do to get to the same level - I can't say I've seen any difference in sharpness between shots posted by users of D800/D800E/D4 even, over on FM ! Maybe a simple pre-set applied on importation into LR4/A3 may do the trick.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 15/11/2012 - 03:06

Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/11/2012 - 03:12
Frogfish wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
Quote:
McGregNi wrote:

This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.

There was this same debate with the D800 and D800E. I remember one blog where the writer had brought the D800 images up to par with those of the D800E after post processing. I don't think there is a conclusive agreement on this as a) it may depend on the subject and b) it more than likely depends on the skills and software of the person processing the images.

Though there is of course the argument that you don't need to do anything much to the D800E images and don't need expensive software and skills to get you where you want to be.

Moire is another valid though unrelated argument and the weaker AA filter cameras such as the 'S' and 'E' definitely show more in certain subjects.

Like the K-5IIs, the D800E only removes the AA filter though doesn't it? I cant' speak for anyone else, but I use my preferred software, Lightroom for far more than, just a bit of sharpening.

They don't remove it Smeggy - it just has a much weaker implementation of it.



OK, sorry I was under the impression these models had it removed.


Quote:
From what I've read that is the only difference between the two (much like the D800 & D800E). I suppose it really depends on how much work in PP you need to do to get to the same level -

Well sure, if all you do is a bit of sharpness then fair enough. I could never be such a purist myself


Quote:
I can't say I've seen any difference in sharpness between shots posted by users of D800/D800E/D4 even, over on FM ! Maybe a simple pre-set applied on importation into LR4/A3 may do the trick.

I haven't seen any difference worth worrying about on test shots between K-5II and K-5IIs either

For example:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

or

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=pentax_k5ii&masterSample=imgp0004&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=pentax_k5ii&slot0Sample=imgp0004&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=pentax_k5iis&slot1Sample=imgp0133&slot2Camera=nikon_d4&slot2Sample=dsc_4681&slot3Camera=pentax_k5&slot3Sample=pentaxk5_nrauto_iso%2080&x=0.263532527604426&y=-0.7092937806016141&extraCameraCount=0
[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
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.