There is no discrepancy.

Take as an example an F-stop of f13. The corresponding "aperture value" will read 7.4.

Why? Av is formally defined as 2 x log(base2) of the aperture. So 2 x ln(13)/ln(2) is ~7.40.

Why log(base2)? Because each whole number increase represents a doubling, i.e. one stop.

Why multiply by 2? Because the amount of light let in by a given f-stop is proportional to the aperture's area rather than its diameter, so the aperture squared is the key variable.

A fuller explanation is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEX_system

Have you considered maybe stitching images together to produce panoramas using one of your existing lenses?

Try here for mount id.

link

I see a slight difference in the colours, but, more detail in the patterns.

The shot on the left, the material patterns appear slightly soft/blurred, on the right, much sharper. Ditto the weaving of the bamboo.

Now, I also accept that notwithstanding the fact that these shots were taken with different cameras that focus might be slightly different, and I know from reading various comments here and in other Forums that this cannot be ignored, so for me this is just one example which may be flawed and I wouldn't base my purchase on it alone, not least because it's between a K-5 and a K-5IIs, whereas my choice is between K-5II and IIs where differences might be subtler.

Guess I'm lucky then, as despite all my other failings I can see a difference, but, I'm trying to decide whether I'll see this in every IIs shot or only in these studio set-piece examples (which have no interest to me), and in any event whether the difference is worth having since I intend taking photographs not a series of technical measurements.

No point whatever spending an extra £130 (over the II) unless I feel I'm getting my monies worth, and since my upgrade will be from a K20D I know I will see an IQ improvement anyway, but, as Smeggypants points out, there is the risk of the 'King's new clothes' effect.

And that's my problem too...

There's £130 difference between the II and IIs in the SRS sale, £330 between the K-5 'classic' and the IIs.

The various reports/comparisons seem to point towards the improved IQ in the IIs as being real.

Certainly I see a difference in the images posted by StveEveritt, but I don't take studio images and wonder whether I would see any improvement in my real-world images? I would espect to see some change over my K20D, but I would get that I'm sure with the K-5 'classic'.

Time to ponder some more...

Thanks bb2. Seems you also have the K5?

Notice any significant difference between it and the IIs, other than perhaps low light performance?

Suppose my question is, would you buy the IIs again if you hadn't already bought it?

I'm torn between the II and the IIs.

A question for those of you who have actually bought the IIs - any problems with moire, etc?

In my local Asda last night I over-heard two people (queueing with loaded trolleys) talking very seriously about stocking up on food just in case something did happen, and how unfair it was to make the 'announcement' just before Christmas.

Give the electrical contacts around the lens mount a clean with a cloth, and/or try mounting the lens on and off a few times. Also, check the contacts to ensure they're all standing slightly 'proud' but compress when you press them with a finger nail.