Jules, all your gear looks beautiful and looked after. I'm sorry to hear of your situation and I wish I was ready to offer up for some lenses myself. I wish you the very best for the sales and the future.

I agree Gary, for many users the extra expense will not give any appreciable gain. But I also think some users will find some gain - it depends on your processing approach. The key to all this is identifying where you fall personally. That was the purpose of my own image testing and reporting.

There is really little point in claiming that the 's' has 'got to be' better because it captures a sharper image by default. That argument has flaws. The captured sensor data is of little significance to anyone, from either camera, until an output has been produced through some kind of processing chain - that could be either in-camera JPEG production or a persons RAW workflow through any number of different processes.

Claims that the 's' images are already sharper carry little weight when that extra sharpness can be equallised (with no IQ loss) with a 'non-s' image through automatic default software settings .... I saw no difference at 100% magnification between the two embedded JPEG previews (rendered by the in-camera processors) and only a tiny amount on the RAW files at default PDCU settings (the 'non-s' image having clearly been default sharpened slightly more). This RAW 'capture sharpening' stage was also painlessly equalised by a +1 or +2 pull on the sharpening slider - again with no IQ loss.

Bear in mind that others reports of visible differences at these stages may well be through other viewing or processing software - these programmes will likely not be applying the default parameters that PDCU is reading ... there has been discussion here before showing that, for example, Lightroom does not do this - so you don't see the equalisation unless you take more direct steps on the 'non-s' image. The same would apply to any number of viewer-type programmes.

It was only when carrying out further detailing and sharpening work through to 'output sharpening' stage that any appreciable differences emerged (by that I mean differences that carried some implication for the photos in IQ terms). For anyone who's interested in how their own kind of processing approach might affect this I'd invite them again to check out the report.

And the claims here that its all about 'high-brow' super-sophisticated fancy sharpening techniques are a massive exaggeration. The 'selective sharpening' I refer to could be as simple as just pre-selecting a sky, inverting that selection to apply the work onto to the ground, than adding sharpening to the ground only. This could avoid IQ degradation on the smooth sky areas and so effectively equalise two images from each camera. Or it might be about applying a higher radius sharpening level to certain areas of a photo - I do this sort of thing with the Topaz Deatail plugin which makes it fairly easy. So its not all about highly complex techniques.

This certainly acts as a good demonstration of the quality possible with this little camera - I'm not a 'Q kinda person' myself, but clearly it provides supurb IQ in a portable package.

The lighting is very well controlled, nicely lit flowers with just the right depth of shadows and detail retained in the highlights. Also the colours look very faithful.

I'm not very convinced on the composition, there surely are better ways to frame it? (but I don't know the state of the rest of the bunch though or whats off to the right side). And I don't think the black background complements the subject at all. Perhaps a smaller aperture would even up the DOF variation between the flower heads as well.

If you mean about camera jpegs, well the in-camera algorithims cancel it out - that was seen in the PDCU preview disply windows side by side (showing the embedded camera JPEGs). Anyway, how many real world shooters have actually got both the K5II & K5IIs to back up their claims?

Which long post ?

It would be easy reading a lot of this to think we were talking about completely different cameras, with different sensors. Of course we're not - its exactly the same sensor and an identical camera, with one exception - lack of aa filter in front of one sensor.

This only changes one element - it eliminates the blur captured initially by the filter. So effectively all thats happening is we no longer need a 'capture sharpening' stage, either applied through default software algorithms or by the user at RAW conversion. It is only by exploring the practical effect this change has on an image workflow and through to its final output that we can come to any firm conclusions on the importance of it all.

To think of it as a matter of image quality at capture, ie what the camera directly outputs, is meaningless. It only gains meaning through a processing context.

As my testing showed me, the single element of difference had zero importance at the lower end of the processing spectrum - JPEG capture - the effect was completely neutralised by 1 or 2 pulls on a sharpness slider. So claims that its is automatically better 'straight out the camera' are misleading to say the least. A pull on a sharpness slider does not cost £80. The same applies to a number of different processing approaches from RAW - that is more effort of course, but for many photographers they will already be using these more 'high-brow' methods, so the choice is always going to be personal to the individual and their output needs.

It may be that the new choices offered by the camera makers are as much about marketing as anything else. I mean, they don't want to scare off people, but need to allow the more modern technology to fly. It sounds like very few K3 users consider the aa-filter simulator to be of any use at all - a waste of money it seems. But I suppose it falls into the 'nice to have, maybe one-day' camp - which is marketing really to an extent.

As I've said earlier, I'm not trying to exaggerate the issue, and I'm not trying to ressurect previous discussions on it - my main interest has always been about the value of the aa filter or not and its effect through the sharpening processing chain.

Its great that many users of the cameras have not had problems, but that doesn't invalidate the points I've made about it being a question for others to consider, relating to their own personal requirements and subject matter. The fact that there are shots of birds without moire does not of itself mean no-one will end up with any shots of birds with moire.

What needs more exploring is the exact combination of conditions that make it actually likely. Knowing more about that would help, both for people choosing a camera with or without filter, or for more informed operation of the K3.

Here's a section of the conclusions section of my testing ... as you can see I consider the question to be not so much about print sizes (although any image degradations caused by sharpening work will be amplified the bigger you print) but rather about the style and selective application of detailing and sharpening work you do ....

2) Basic RAW conversion and Capture Sharpening adjustment in PDCU

With this process, all software settings were neutralised. However, by default, the K5II image very nearly equalised the 's' shot. This is apparently due to the camera profiles being interperted by PDCU and additional default sharpening being applied when the file was opened. A +1 user adjustment to the K5II shot made them almost identical.

2) Conclusion - for me this is significant. I do my RAW conversion in PDCU, I save out with a good bit of capture sharpening (+2 or +3 for most shots). I then carry on the workflow in other software, including significant detail enhancements for highly intricate scenes. For shots that do not require this extra work, (eg shots of the family) then the Capture Sharpening is as much as I often need.
So, if you do not need to (or don't like to) apply significant amounts of detail, fine micro-contrast and other sharpening-type enhancements to your images, you will not see significant benefit with the 's' model
- choose AA Filter model


3) Additional Definition & Detailing Enhancements - to larger output sizes

If following RAW conversion, including Capture Sharpening, you need to carry out further sharpening, definition or other type of clarity enhancements in PP, and these enhancements are applied to a wide range of textural surfaces and differing ranges of pixel radius, then there comes a point when the K5II image will let you down before the 's' version, particularly on smoother textures and larger areas of single tone. Also deep shadow areas will lose their depth more quickly.

3) Conclusion - If your shots demand these more intense processes, and large prints risk revealing these defects
- choose non AA filter ('s') model


Sorry, I don't know if printing changes the risk of or appearance of moire. If it can be seen on screen then I guessm it will be seen in print, I guess!

Read more at: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/53-pentax-dslr-camera-articles/230206-k5ii-vs...#ixzz2v1cXgLO0

That's probably the most sensible and balanced comment on a 'moire' decision I've read here. And regarding 'sharpness & resolution' matters - those who claim things like 'you can see the difference' are not telling the whole story - it depends on the proccesses applied to any images being compared, the viewing software and default algorithims, and I can assure you the variables are considerable.

And moire does not only occur on textiles - there are plenty of examples on all kinds of multi-patterned surfaces - bird feathers, corragated iron, fencing etc. I am not trying to over-egg this - I agree it is limited and a small risk, but I feel it is misleading to tell others not to ever let it concern you, it'll never happen. No-one can be sure of that. And the options for controlling and removing it are far from established.

Even K3 users can't tell us an exact and reliable method of determining (in the field) whether the simulator is required on or not.