Beautiful images Simon, fabulous clarity.

Regards
David

Same here, hope you all have a great year. Sincere thanks to everyone on the site who has offered help and advice in the past 12 months.

Best wishes
David

That image looks very clean for ISO 3200 Daz and the colour rendition is great. I doubt whether my K-5 with AA filter could equal that for ISO 3200. Maybe everyone's been focussing too much on whether or not the IIs is sharper than the variants with the AA filter? Maybe there are other 'real world advantages' of the IIs as well as increased detail? Your image above might suggest this, but before I conclude on this point I will add one more thing (I can hear Smeggy's reply ringing in my head before I type this): No conclusion can be reached unless we have an identical shot with a K-5 that has the AA filter!!!!

However, judging by some of the shots you have posted recently and also by feedback I have had from someone who owns a IIs and several 'normal' K-5's, the output from the IIs appears to be noticeably 'cleaner' and more detailed.

I'm sure this won't be the end of the debate!

Regards
David

I also agree with the above. That's why I will only be buying a IIs when the price comes down to a more realistic level (which I'm sure it will in due course).

Regards
David

Hi Donald, I can understand what you mean, but would echo what Darkskies has said above. There is absolutely no reason why 'heavy PP' is the result of shooting in RAW. The reason for my recommendations is that I believe you will get more from your camera if you shoot this way and the end result in terms of image quality and dynamic range will usually be better when shooting in RAW and processing carefully. Yes, it does take longer, but I think it is really worth the effort.

It's all about personal preference though and if you don't wish to spend time doing PP, then jpeg is the only way to go. I actually enjoy the PP process stage as much as taking the photos so for me it's not a problem!

Regards
David

I thought that might get a response!

To some people 'significant' means the same as 'small incremental' to others. It depends on your point of view.

If I bought a K-5IIs and experienced what I perceive to be a 'small incremental' difference (positive) over the K-5, I would actually think that would be 'significant' given the quality of images the standard K-5 produces. I hope you can see what I mean.

Anyway, going back to the original thrust of my comment, I stand by what I said in terms of preferring to take note of actual experience from users of both cameras, rather than speculation and comparison of compressed images on a website.

Regards
David

I think one Forum post about your issue would work just as well as three posts Mark!

Sorry I can't offer any advice but I'm sure someone can help.

Regards
David

Small incremental differences are commonly known as 'progress'! This is generally how things improve.

Regards
David

As stated Smeggy, I prefer to listen to someone who owns and uses both cameras in a professional / semi professional capacity and can speak from personal experience. Any views expressed by non-users are simply conjecture and therefore not necessarily valid.

I will ask him to let me use the K-5IIs for a landscape shoot and also one under controlled studio conditions then I'll let you know what I think. Until then, I trust his word more than any conjecture.

Regards
David

It's nice Nigel, but as stated above it needs a bit of levelling. Apart from this, it could do with a bit more to give it interest, e.g a better sky and more interesting light, this would also improve the reflections, maybe something in the left of the shot rather than open water. You can only work with what the day gives you though and clearly you can't make clouds appear (unless you change the sky which I am not a fan of).

Regards
David