Taking up the challenge, using the DPR Raw test image files, default ACR conversion, and minimal sharpening of the K-5ii image, these are crops at 100% -

K-5ii



K-5iis



These are equivalent to viewing the entire images as 42 inch prints. The only significant difference appears to be enhanced moire in the iis image.

Has anyone else had a go?

Philip

The food analogies posted here seem totally inadequate.

For a fair comparison of two examples of the same food dish, one would need to actually taste the final plated product from each recipe. For a fair comparison of the II and IIs, one would need to actually be allowed to see the final printed photos from each camera.

It seems to me, from evidence made available for us to see, that comparing the images seen from the II and IIs would be analogous to comparing the flavour of a dish made using mineral water with exactly the same dish but made with pure water.

Philip

Ownership and regular use of something are no guarantee of valid unbiased reasoned opinions. After all, those two criteria are often employed by many deluded people to justify their commitment to Nikon, Canon, Olympus........

Philip

Good photos, John. Although I haven't been to Lincoln, having visited many other cathedrals, I can imagine that your images are faithful to the actual colours and lighting there.

I think this is an effect caused by correcting perspective to make vertical lines just too vertical! When we see a tall building from a low viewpoint, our perception leads us to expect its vertical parallel lines to converge slightly. The effect diminishes with distance, so it is greater when we are close to (or inside) the building. It is greatly exaggerated by wide lenses, making the perspective look unnatural in an image, and correction needs to be applied. However, even most PP tutorials encourage us to restore the verticals without considering viewpoint, and the result can sometimes make the top of a building appear to be wider than the base. Horizontal perspective convergence gives depth to a scene in a two dimensional image and, similarly, vertical convergence gives the impression of height. So retaining an appropriate subtle amount, rather than making verticals exactly vertical, can give a more natural look to a photo of a tall building taken from a low viewpoint. Difficulty comes in deciding what amount is appropriate.

Philip

The extra in-camera editing options might be useful occasionally, but I'm not really bothered about GPS and WiFi in the body - it seems likely that they would eat up battery power. I like the compact bodies and long battery life of the K-5 series, so I wouldn't mind if GPS and WiFi were incorporated into the battery grip, as I would probably never use one!

Philip

Mike, I don't know if this is relevant to the problem, but the exif data for your files (revealed by the exif reader FileTagSleuth) contain references to the Pentax-FA 43mm Limited lens?? E.g. -



Philip

Wonderful! Thank you, David.

Philip

This is good advice from Jon and, if you have not tried it, using a prime is a great new experience. The 28mm f2.8 is a quite a good versatile one to start with, as it is only 1mm away from a standard lens (i.e. 43mm equiv. full frame) - you can leave it on the camera all day long and zoom with your feet whenever possible! If a prime longer than the kit lens is what you want, then as Jon suggests, you could go for the 135mm f3.5. However, apart from a 50mm, it might be difficult to find a good Pentax lens for as low as £30.

Philip

My choice would be #2, Stephen. I like what I assume is aim of the composition - to use the trees to frame the scene. However, the detailed tree trunks tend to dominate the shot, so a 4:3 crop to remove some width from the trees, and also darkening their bark, would improve the image for me.

Philip

Great natural colours. The colour image is my first choice - those colours and the lovely smile radiate happiness.

Philip