davidstorm wrote:
I really think we are all wasting our time on these comparisons; as has been said many times already, comparing images on the web does not and can not indicate any 'real world' benefits. I also think that the statement quoted by Gary (Cabstar) above is a load of rubbish when it comes to the K-5IIs versus the K-5II. Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying here; I am not meaning to infer that Gary talks rubbish as he clearly does not, I am only referring to the quote he has provided and putting this into context with the K-5IIs and K-5II discussion. Both cameras are 'for making pictures' regardless of anyone pixel peeping or not.

For what it's worth, I'm absolutely sure that most K-5IIs owners don't spend their time pixel peeping their images; I certainly don't do this; I simply haven't got the time to waste. What I do is look at my images on my (very good) full HD screen, both as I'm processing them and afterwards, and also occasionally make prints on my high resolution Epson printer. I can categorically say (without any pixel peeping) that the resulting images look better from the K-5IIs than they do from the K-5 Mk1 in real world use (I don't have a K-5II). When I say they look better, I mean they just look sharper, crisper, more vibrant and these are fair comparisons because I shoot with the same lenses on both cameras so I have the ability to judge this. BTW all settings are identical on both bodies, so there is no possibility of any processing differences, unless Pentax have introduced something automatic we are not aware of. I also have 6 months of heavy usage, thousands of images shot, processed and reviewed to base this upon.

This is the last I will say about it as I think the subject is now completely worn out and before anyone asks, the answer is 'no I will not be providing any comparison images'!

Best wishes
David