Last ones, these are at ISO12800.

K-5 Mk1



K-5 MkIIs



In these, the camera is my K-x and is in an identical position in both pictures.

Regards
David

It's clear to me after looking at both 6400 images that the two cameras are producing clear differences! The main intent originally was to test noise between the two (at Dr. O's request), but what I'm a little puzzled about is that there seems to be some minor DOF differences?

Anyway, I'm 100% certain that the IIs shots are noticeably 'cleaner' for the given ISO's and also from other tests I've done that the IIs is sharper. For me, this is important because less processing will be required, therefore less additional artefacts will be introduced, therefore final result will be better with the IIs! That's all I'm bothered about.

Cheers
David

It's a better image with the HDR, but I do think the same could easily have been achieved without any HDR processing on this particular shot.

Regards
David

It may be best to ignore the position of the camera as this is the only variable in the two shots. The boxes have been left in identical positions, but the camera has been moved. I included it in the image as a test for dark areas / shadow detail. I still think the IIs image is noticeably sharper, brighter and has more shadow detail?

Regards
David

OK, as promised, here are the images shot at ISO6400. Once again I can confirm that all settings on each camera were identical and that no post processing has been carried out on either image, other than a white balance adjustment to make sure both are exactly the same colour temperature. Settings used were ISO6400, 1/20th shutter speed, manual aperture at F4, manual focus using live view at x10 to ensure critical focus accuracy, 2 second self timer, tripod.

K-5 Mk1



K-5IIs



Again, I would be interested in any comments. Just to make it 100% clear, I'm posting these for the benefit of anyone considering upgrading from a Mk1 K-5 to a K-5IIs and who wants to see some actual IQ comparisons with no tampering, on an image that displays a good tonal range and colour range, along with subjects that illustrate relative sharpness. It's not scientific, but I think it is interesting and has clearly provoked some comment. BTW, I think the exposure on both of the above is slightly less than ideal compared to the first ones posted, but the K-5 and the IIs images at 6400 have the same exposure so the comparison is still valid.

Edit: A bit more info to assist: the focussing was directed on the round section of the 'Photoshop' DVD where is says 'Volume 2 Part Four'.

Regards
David

The images are a comparison between the K-5IIs and the original K-5 Mk1. Confusion has probably crept in due to posts made since my original entries; I think I made it clear that the comparison was between IIs and the original K-5, in fact I've labelled the images very clearly above each one!

There is no significant focus difference between the shots, on this I can be categoric. Look at the white 'Pentax' word at the back of the larger box; if the focus on the first image was further back than it is on the second one, this word would be in sharper focus on the first, but it isn't!!

I think some people refuse to see what is actually there; I will shortly upload a couple at ISO 6400 to see how these compare; I can't pre-judge the outcome as I haven't looked at them yet.

Regards
David

Thanks Dr. O, I will post some more tonight at higher ISO's and will also provide links to larger image sizes.

Regards
David

Hi Gary, there are still a lot of people interested in the comparisons. Autofocus accuracy is not is not a factor in my tests as they were carried out with a manual focus lens to eliminate any AF issues, so this removes one of the 'non-filter' based improvements that you have referred to. I used Live View at x10 magnification to focus on a static subject; this is probably the most accurate way to ensure critical focus is achieved.

There are still a good few people who do not perceive any benefit to the K-5IIs over the standard K-5II; I happen to disagree based on what I've seen and I think the two comparison images I posted last night may be a bit of an eye-opener for some? The IIs image is brighter and sharper all over and has much less noise, particularly so in the areas of red colouring. It also has more shadow detail. If we can obtain sharper / better images without resorting to software sharpening, the results will be less noisy, less artificial looking and more pleasing to the eye. For me it's worth the extra cost to gain this and I would imagine many others will agree.

Regards
David

I'm not really so sure why a special kit is required? It's easy to make a sensor cleaning tool with a chip fork or lollipop stick, cut off so that there is an exactly square end and then wrapped with a Pec Pad or similar so several layers cover the end. Very lightly dampen the pad (it musn't be wet, only very slightly damp) with isopropyl alcohol and wipe carefully across the sensor surface (make sure there's nothing on there that can scratch before doing this).

I've done this several times on my K-x and once on my K-5 with very successful results and it cost me about 1p per clean.

Regards
David

For Adrian in particular and anyone else that is interested, I've just quickly shot a couple at ISO3200 with both the IIs and the original K-5, again both with exactly the same lens and settings. 3200ISO, SMC K135mm F2.5 set at F4, manually focussed using Live View on exactly the same spot at x10 magnification, manual exposure, 1/10 second shutter speed, 2 second self timer, mounted on Redsnapper tripod, no processing on either image except conversion to jpeg and size reduction.

K-5 Mk1



K-5IIs



The noise on the IIs image is marginally less than that on the K-5 Mk1 image, but there is very little in it. However, if the K-5 image were to be sharpened to make it as close to the IIs image as possible in sharpness terms, this would introduce additional noise / artefacts. This is not a scientific test, it's just a quick snap taken in a few minutes, but has a good range of tones and shadow areas which are good at revealing noise. I will do more tests at higher ISO's when time allows.

Edit: You may also wish to comment on the shadow detail from each image? IMHO, the IIs beats the Mk1 quite easily in this regard and I must stress that I have applied no processing to these shots except the RAW conversion then a size reduction.

Regards
David