Upgrading from a K-r

I've decided that it's time to upgrade from my K-r. I can't run to a K3, so my options seem to be a second hand (mint) K5, or new K5ii or K5iis, with my preference being to go for new. As a result I suppose that I'm really looking at a choice between the K5ii or the K5iis.

My main photographic interests are landscape (urban & rural), old buildings (ruins!), macro/close-up mainly of flowers and insects, and still life. I'm not interested in fashion or portraiture.

Given the type of images I like to take, is the iis worth the extra money? What would people recommend?

Deffo

Hi, I upgraded from a KR to a K5 in March of last year.

Bright pentaprism, much quieter shutter & mirror, better autofocus, bigger battery, top LCD,more customisation options, weather proofing are just some of the things to look forward to. I'm still learning. My favourite feature is the TAV mode.

Download the free pdf handbook for any of these to learn more.

Don't expect sudden improvements in your photography though. That takes a lot of practice but the K5 is the gear to progress with. The better viewfinder will certainly help with manual macro focusing and judgement of depth of field.

I think if it is mainly landscape I would go for the most you can afford in order - K30, K50, K5, K5ii, K5iis. My K30 had big benefits over the Kr (mainly, better AF, more resolution, weatherproofing, better viewfinder, better live view,focus peeking and proper remote socket). This of course would represent your minimum net outlay and the others would give you most of this and more.

I can refer you to my own research into this, which will provide a good read .... link (PentaxForums Articles).

To greatly summarise the conclusions, I saw it as coming down to two factors - the methods you use for image sharpening or detailing, and the size of output limited to the point that any sharpening or detailing will become 'degrading'.

So, I concluded that for camera JPEGs, the default sharpening effectively equalised the images. For RAW, the K5IIs had the advantage if your sharpening methods were globally applied, and you didn't isolate smoother textures to avoid artifacts as the detailing was 'cranked up'. Of course, the extent that this was significant would depend on how closely you look at the images, or how big you printed them.

If you did carry out more sophisticated, selective sharpening methods, including differing radius settings and / or micro-contrast - type approaches on targeted areas, then I did not find such an advantage to the 's' model.

There's no doubt that both K5II models should represent increasingly great value for money as the K3 beds in. For your listed photography subjects, I do feel that a risk exists of encountering moire defects, in unexpected places. But this view is not held by some others. I feel its early days yet to discover exactly how much of a problem moire will be in an aa filterless cameras, so for myself I would play safe and go for the K5II.

But in my article there is a conclusion for every situation!

Go for the best you can get, if you had the choice of having your photos blurred at the time of taking would you choose this option, no. Well the iis doesn't blur them and the difference IS noticeable.
Direct from the camera the images are sharper and there is very little requirement for PP.
I own the iis and I have witnessed one, yes one instance of the fabled moire. To have every one of your photos purposely blurred just in case it appears is ludicrous.

My one instance of moire can be seen in this topic and I've taken a fair few thousand photos with it and not seen another instance. The other photos in the thread are showing chroma noise not moire. Take a look at my Flickr and pretty much everything I've shot this year is with the K-5iis, I previously had the 7 and what a massive improvement I witnessed in IQ, it was simply astounding.
Take no notice of the naysayers and get the iis

As I said, not everyone shares my views ! Steve, I take it then that you would regard the revolutionary new 'aa filter simulator', bought to us for the very first time by Ricoh & Pentax, as a waste of money?

I've shot a lot of images now with cameras that have no AA filter and it really is not a problem.

The K-3 solves the dilemma all in one model, this saving the need for endless discussions about which model to buy.

I would leave the AA simulator switched off, but I guess some would leave it switched on. For those who choose to activate it the dilemma will be Type 1 or Type 2....

The design team at Pentax must have been getting really fed up with all those discussions! Maybe they've been logging on here I don't want to contradict people who have experienced no issues, everyone's view on it is valid. I feel some thought and caution is advisable, as it would be a shame to have an image affected by moire when it was not possible to reshoot.

But, yes, the K3 is a neat solution, to a problem that may or may not exist.

Certainly not, in the earlier post it mentions the one occasion that it would have been required and it could have been switched on at that time. And then straight back off again. After shooting with the iis I could never go back to an AA filter. I had to use a K-5 for a while as mine was in hospital and found it totally uninspiring after the iis and whereas I would normally pick up my camera just to have a play I didn't bother with the 5. Sad but true.

Could I ask, for that example you experienced, if you had been using a K3, would you have actually switched on the simulator before taking the shot, for sure?

A camera can help to inspire. If you love the handling and the results you're bound to feel more like using it.

Sadly I'm still stuck with the K-5 and good as it is I would like to "accidentally" order a couple of K-3 bodies. Unfortunately that would be stretching things at this moment.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that increased resolution needs improved technique to get the best out of it. Otherwise much of the advantage can be negated.

You cannot switch it on before the shot because, obviously you wouldn't know until reviewing the shot, so you take the shot, review and if there is moire switch on the simulator and take the shot again, if this doesn't get rid of the moire you use the stronger level. Simples.

Its the reviewing part that I feel may prove difficult, or impractical in real life situations. The LCD is comparitively tiny, and hardly ideal for carrying out detailed examinations of potentially problematic areas, with all the zooming and scrolling that would involve.

To build this sort of examination into a shooting technique in order to make critical quality decisions is surely inefficient?

It is for that reason that I would suggest the default AA simulator setting should be 'on'.

John, I've read something similar said in relation to 'FF' sensors. What are the techniques that may need honing to get the advantages would you say?

You have a K-7, I had one too, and until you have witnessed the difference with your own eyes you simply haven't the experience to comment with any conviction. I'm not going to get into another of your many arguments. It's quite simple you don't have the experience so your comments are unfounded.