My final contributions to this subject are as follows:

1. Zoom into any image posted on this Forum or on the Gallery and you will see jagged lines and pixel structure. Images are made up of small squares that are visible when viewed at the appropriate level of zoom. Please explain how you will correct this issue that all photographers on this site are falling foul of.

2. People who take calculated risks are usually those who are successful in business and in life in general

3. When have I said that I upload any of my images to magazines? I don't, but if I did I would make sure they were right before I did so

4. When did I say it's 'Photoshop's fault'? Regardless, this is irrelevant due to point 3 above.

5. You have a PM Smeggy, please don't write rubbish about me.

Regards
David

You're right Nigel, there is a lot of colour noise on the image you have mentioned. I've zoomed it to 700% on the version posted on the Forum (which is very compressed in the first place) and luminance / colour noise is visible in most areas. However, let's be sensible about this, if you zoom any of the Forum images posted by anyone you will see a level of colour and luminance noise! How anyone can conclude this is 'moire' is beyond me I'm afraid.

Take Gary's image at the top of page 2 for example, or the images you posted of the Steam Fair Waltzers a day or two ago - these also exhibit large areas of colour noise to a greater or lesser degree. I did not clean up colour noise on any of the Mediterranean images I posted and this one in particular was quite dark on the original so has had a fair increase to shadows / levels. This obviously impacts on image noise, especially if I haven't cleaned it up! Check out other images on the same Mediterranean thread taken with the K-5iiS and you will see far less noise where the exposure was more accurate, but if you choose to pixel-peep you can find some in any image on here.

We really are in danger of jumping to incorrect conclusions based on little or no knowledge of the facts. All I'm trying to do is to be sensible and explain that what people are seeing is not moire in these images, whereas in the recent examples posted tonight it clearly is moire. Colour noise does not mean moire, luminance noise does not mean moire, jaggies on compressed images does not mean moire. I don't strive to publish, print or display my images for any other reason than photography is my hobby, so I don't pay particular attention to ensuring they will withstand large print sizes or zooming to ridiculous levels on a website forum, so I would fully expect some of them to have colour and luminance noise!

It does annoy me slightly (you may have noticed) when people take images posted on this site as 'evidence' that for example the 'K-5iis is not suitable for architectural images'. Please excuse my bluntness, but 'what a load of codswallop'.

Regards
David

I fully agree, the image above is a good example as is the one pointed out by Steve. This is completely different to anything on the images of mine that Algi has linked to.

I think we have to be really careful not to give people the wrong impression and a misunderstanding of what is moire versus compression artefacts. If you zoom right in on Gary Cabstar's image taken with a K-5ii (not iis) at the top of page 2 on this thread, there are lots of jaggies around edges (see guitar especially), but this is not moire either, it is mostly the result of compression.

Regards
David

Thanks John, I've sent a message of apology to Jon.

Regards
David

I don't understand why you're always so bitter about things Smeggy; quote 'Maybe it's about time you respected my opinion, like I respect yours and drop this attitude of "My opinion is superior to yours becuase I own the camera". Just a thought.'

It is quite clear from your many quotes on this and other subjects that you don't tend to respect other people's opinions.

I've never had any attitude of 'mine is better than yours', I don't think you are in any position to judge this as you don't know me and have never met me, unlike many other members on here who have and who I think will be smiling to themselves when they read your remarks.

I respect Gary Cabstar's decision to buy a K-5ii, but frankly that has nothing to do with it. Do I know what Gary would say if he had a iis and shot thousands of images with it? No I don't, and neither do you.

It's a real shame you don't more often use your obvious intelligence and knowledge to contribute in a positive way more often instead of being so negative. That's just my opinion by the way.

Sincere apologies to Jon for posting this on his thread, I feel bad about it.

Regards
David

The new version of the 18-55 hasn't actually been replaced by a WR variant, it has simply been supplemented by it. Both the WR and non WR versions are still produced, the WR has a metal mount versus the plastic of the L version, but they are the same optically. I currently have a WR and two non-WR copies and they all take photos that look very similar to me, in fact I doubt that I could tell which were take by which copy.

Notwithstanding that, both the 17-70 and 16-45 comfortably outperform the 18-55.

Regards
David

I can't see it either! This is so funny it's untrue. What you seem to be totally ignoring Algi is that these images have been re-sized and compressed! Anyway, please tell me where the moire is in this one (no.11):

link

If you're meaning on the top of the building in the distance this is actually the tiles on the roof!! WOW even in OOF areas on the K-5iis you can still see the fine details! What a camera!

Also, please point out exactly where in the blue flowers it is on this one (no.2):

link

I really do think you are going off your head and confusing compression artefacts with moire. Don't forget, I've got the full size versions of these and I can tell you categorically there's no moire in them. Perhaps the method of compression I'm using to re-size images is creating a few jagged edges for the pixel peepers out there (usually bicubic sharper, sometimes ordinary bicubic in photoshop), but how you can say that the images in my portfolio have moire is very bizarre indeed.

Regards
David

Taken thousands of shots at weddings with the K-5iis Algi, along with Mr. Wilson who uses two of them at weddings and neither of us has ever had any moire on any of the images! So, we don't even need Lightroom (as I'm sure Steve never has where moire is concerned) as the problem isn't there in the first place!

I think it's time you stopped convincing yourself there's an issue and buy yourself a K-5iis to put your mind at rest I don't know how you sleep at night worrying about it.

Cheers
David

Not much chance of that - she hates photography!

Cheers
David

I don't really want to get embroiled in tit for tat comments, but I do really feel you have completely missed the point here Smeggy. No-one has ever said that 'no-one other than K-5iis owners can look at the pictures it produces'. What has been said is than those who own a K-5iis and have used it for an extended period of time, across a wide range of photographic situations and many thousands of images shot, are in a much better place to judge the merits of the IQ, especially when many of those owners have owned and still do own a K-5 (or two) and can therefore directly compare the output of the two cameras in all of these varied situations.

I don't think I've seen any observations, from anyone in that position, that does not agree with what Shaun has said in this thread and what I've said many times, i.e. the K-5iis consistently produces better images than the K-5 does. I'm not talking about AF, I'm talking about IQ.

I fail to see how anyone can argue with that logic as to do so is not common sense.

Regards
David