I am more concerned with focus accuracy than with focus speed. On the other forum one of our countymen insists that the problem lies with the lenses rather than the camera body. Granted the big DA* zooms are great, but the attraction of Pentax for me lies with the wonderfully small DA Ltds of which I have four ( 15,21, 35 and 70mm). I love their sharpness and the way they complement the camera without adding unduly to the overall weight.

You are convincing me as, as you say, you only live once!
As for the camera club - we are not at all equipment orientated. I could turn up on an outing with a Leica or a Hasselbad and probably no-one would notice! This is a good thing because it means that no -one looks down on other members' cameras, however humble they may be. There are only two Pentaxians in the club - me and another, most of them have never even heard of Pentax!!

Miles

To Smeggy,

Yes I agree entirely with your comment. A brilliant photographer with a box brownie would probably put us all to shame. My problem is with autofocus of moving images, an area where Pentax lags a bit behind other makes. I recently read the review of the K5IIs on DXO labs and this certainly makes this point, although Pentax is ahead of most of the field in other respects. I have no worries at all about landscape shots at which Pentax excells. I just wish for a greater number of keepers where the subject is moving and if the K5IIs will give me this then I might get some wild life shots to compete with others at the Camera Club.

So far a number of professional users have reported an overall improvement in AF and several in iQ generally. These reports have put aside any doubt that the K5IIs is worth having and I just have to resolve now whether I can afford one !!

Miles

To Smeggy

Photography is only a competition when you get caught up in camera club activities - I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but you learn fast and competitions can be both enjoyable when the judge llikes your images and not so enjoyable when he/she does not. As for Skodas - they are actually very good cars with an image problem not unlike Pentax. If I really thought that Canon/ Nikon were superior to Pentax, I would change, but I do not. Pentax is second to none given a satisfactory capture especially with an improved AF as with the KIIs.

Thanks so much for replies. Having read these and ones form the other forum, I am clear that the K5IIs does offer a real world improvement over the original K5. Two factors influence me. The first is that I am sometimes frustrated by the AF when shooting moving objects which is much better than the K7 but still not totally reliable. (It goes without saying that I never exclude user error or lack of technique - I am always learning!). The second is that as a camera club member I am up against some pretty talented opposition, some of whom use some pretty high end cameras such as the Nikon 800.
I am impressed by Fletcher8's images and by the fact that a professional chooses to use the K5IIs. K5IIs users seem to report better AF and not just in low light as well as not needing to calibrate lenses.

On the other hand I have to say that I get some very sharp images from my K5 and although I have had it more than two years now, there is probably more than I can learn from this camera ( so here I am agreeing with Carl and Simon!). I like to keep up with latest developments, but hate to waste money and upgrading now might mean another upgrade a few months later. However I do not know when any new models are going to come along and even if they were to be announced in September, they would probably not be available until November and even then it would be wise to wait for the inevitable price drop after about 3 months and also to see if here are any bugs ( like the sensor stain saga) which need to be eradicated. In this latter scenario, if I upgraded, I would have at least the best part of a year with the K5IIs anyway!

If only we knew whether there are to be two new models ( APS-C and FF) or one (APS-C or FF). I would be even more undecided with FF bearing in mind that very few of my ten lenses would be compatible.

The sensible course of action is probably to wait and see what is announced. However cameras, lenses and photography in general have a very significant emotional aspect which can not always be reconciled with the rational side of one's brain. I will think hard. Fortunately I have no time this week to visit SRS!

I posted a similar question on the DPR forum and got mixed responses. Some people feel that there is no point and I should wait for the next significant upgrade and some ( who have made the change) think that the upgrade is well worth it. The current rebate is a small incentive. No-one knows when the next APS-C model will come out - it could be as early as the autumn or it might not be until next year or even later. It would seem logical to expect some sort of response to the Nikon 7100, but on the other hand maybe the KIIs is intended to be the Pentax APS-C flagship for the next year or so.

My question is whether those who have upgraded see a real difference in AF and resolution or not.

I have four Ltds ( 15, 21 , 35 and 70) which I hope would be good enough to exploit the capabilities of the K5IIs, but on the other hand even allowing for pX and rebate it will still cost me £500+.

Of course there is always another way of looking at things. None of us is getting any younger and you can wait and wait for something that never appears to come, or you can shell out and enjoy and shell out again whenever the next significant upgrade appears - what the hell - it is only money!!

I take your point John about 3rd paty inks but some are better quality than others and Lyson is well respected. I have my doubts about the CIS which I was using. To judge from this one, systems such as this are very cheap and flimsy and I do wonder whether air in the various tubes actually caused the problem rather than the ink. There are a lot of Epson printers out there which are running happily on this system but not mine alas. I shall watch the Jettec cartridges carefully and if there is any sign of clogging I will revert to the Canon ones.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the same image printed on both a Canon and Epson highish end printers. I wonder whether anyone can oblige?? Certainly Epson printers produce some very fine images when they work!

One answer is to buy a Canon printer. I had an Epson 2880 which clogged irreversibly using Lyson inks. I was quoted £240 by a 3rd party repairer who would not guarantee that it would fix the problem, so I sold the printer for spares on ebay. I bought a Canon 9000 mk ii which in two years has only needed one head clean using Canon inks. I have recently diversified to Jettec cartridges as an experiment and so far with 4 of them in operation, I have had no clogging and no as yet noticeable change in colour rendition. Canon ink heads are easily replaceable by the user ( in fact they do not come installed) and cost about £100. I would not go back to an Epson printer based upon my experience of both CAnon and Epson printers.

Take a look at next week's AP which compares the K5IIs with Nikon D600 ( and Fuji x-pro1)and concludes that the FF Nikon has only a slight advantage over the APS C rivals. At first glance the various illustrations in the article indicate that you have to indulge in extreme pixel peeping to discern a difference using 100% crops. I suspect that there will be virtually no discernible qualitative difference below 100%. The AP also comments that APS-C bodies tend to be smaller and lighter and implies that this coupled with the expense of New FF lenses must lead one to consider whether moving to FF is worth it! Overall I take the article to be an endorsement of the K5IIs and the only thing stopping me from acquiring one is the possibility of a new Pentax APS-C camera being announced in the next few months.

Thankyou John - I see that comparisons are possible with images other than the lens specific ones. I compared two images of the half timbered building and have to agree that the KIIs is sharper. On the other hand looking at a comparison of one of the white balance pictures, I found it much more difficult to separate the two and the situation seems to vary dending upon which part of the image one is looking at. I found places which were better on the KII and wonder whether there were focus differences. I suspect that it is virtually impossible to replicate a photo in every minute detail as there must always be variables.

I think that the bottom line for me as that if I were coming from the K7 or earlier, I would definitely go for the K5IIs, but I still feel that an upgrade would not make a real world difference to my images. The other consideration is that I would hate to blow the budget on a K5IIs only to find that a few months later a true K5 successor model comes out with maybe a 24MP sensor and tiltable screen and dare I say it maybe an autofocus which deals more efficiently with moving subjects, where my hit rate is not as high as I would like. I wonder whether the K5IIs has improved in that department.