I have found that my M 50mm F1.4 makes a very sharp macro lens when reversed and used at an appropriate aperture. I think a lot of the older 50mm lenses are ideal for this type of use.

Regards
David

Do you think that Smeggy need some specs similar to yours Mike?

Regards
David

I agree with John, it's totally pointless Smeggy, no amount of comparing images on websites like this or any other will convince you as you seem to see only what you want to see and choose to ignore the views of many experienced owners on here who use the K-5iis regularly.

I prefer to trust my own judgement from real world use with both cameras over thousands of images shot. I have no reason to justify my purchase of a K-5iis and no reason to continue to state it's merits over a K-5, other than the fact that it has proved itself to me to be better, beyond any doubt.

It's well worth the extra money IMO, whether or not you choose to agree with me, which you won't. If I buy another body (I may or may not), in the current line-up it would be a K-5iis.

Regards
David

Good night, sleep tight

The only reason I can think of to buy a carbon fibre tripod is weight saving. This may be a good reason depending on the person and the amount of carrying required, but for me it's a non issue. My advice would be to buy a good, sturdy tripod that's not too heavy but which has good strength and stability. Something like a Redsnapper for instance. If the tripod is stable and sturdy there is no need to hang bags of stones or bags of anything from it unless you're using it in a 60mph gale.

Vibration has never been a factor with my Redsnapper, regardless of camera / lens combinations used. Correct use of the tripod and camera is much more important.

Regards
David

How do you know this Smeggy? I've owned and used both for an extended period and the difference is bigger than you may think. Ask anyone who's had, or has both cameras.

I'm getting a bit bored with people claiming there's little difference when they haven't used the K-5iis, or at least haven't owned it; it's a bit like saying you don't like the taste of certain food when you haven't ever eaten it.

I'm probably as bored in fact with unfounded speculation that it's no better than you are with people who are saying it is better.

Regards
David

This one is streets ahead of the first one posted Stan. The angle / perspective is great and the colours are spot on. Very good and a great advert for the 16-45 lens.

Regards
David

A very good set of images, well taken. I am a golfer and have no issues with the type of shots you've taken; I don't think you would have disturbed any of the play with these.

Regards
David

This one is much better than the first ones posted Alistair, in particular because the light is right - it is not flat lighting like the other two posted on earlier threads.

I agree with you on your observation of your 18-55, it is making your images soft, but I don't think that all copies of this lens are so soft. I've had several and they have all been pretty sharp. If you are struggling for budget, maybe you could stretch to a DA 16-45? This lens is much better and has been my mainstay for landscapes over the past 18 months. A decent second hand one should set you back between £120 and £150, you could get about £50 for your 18-55, assuming it's the weather sealed version.

Regards
David

Congratulations Jim, well done!

Regards
David

Jules, I use my K-5iis alongside my K-5 mk1 in a variety of shooting situations and often swap lenses over between the two, so I think I'm in a fair position to judge. A lot of the comparison work has been at weddings, which are a stern test of image quality, focussing ability (often in low light) and general ability to shoot 'keepers'. At weddings I've found as follows:

- K-5iis is definitely a step up in IQ. A lot of people have commented here and in other places that they can see very little difference in images shot with a K-5 compared to a K-5iis. Problem is, most of these people haven't owned one or made prints from one. Images from the iis leap off the screen or the printed page - it's not just the sharpness - they just look better in every way.

- Moire is not a problem in real world shooting. Haven't noticed anything significant yet

- K-5iis is a far more reliable focusser, but this would also apply to a K-5ii versus a mk1

For landscapes I think the same things apply, but moire is even less of an issue for this type of shooting. If I were buying another body today it would definitely be a iis.

Regards
David