It sometimes seems to me that my contributions to this forum are just as invisible as the differences between the comparison images posted here. I'll try again by quoting from the dpreview page that I linked to in my last post:

"In theory, a sensor without an AA filter, when coupled with a 'perfect' lens, will deliver resolution equal to its Nyquist limit..."

"... vertical and horizontal detail is accurately described (by the original K-5) up to around 2800LPH, with some line detail surviving up to, and even slightly beyond Nyquist."

Refer back to that linked page for a clear description of the original K-5's resolution performance. The implication there is that the K-5, with its weak AA filter, is capable of resolving up to the theoretical maximum of its sensor's potential. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest here that removing its weak AA filter (to give a K-5IIs) results in imperceptible differences in real world photography.

Philip

John - "I think persistently what you are not seeing is the improvement of clarity in detail. That's clearly visible to me and to others as well. I see it in the images."

This might be true for original full-size images although, even then, it seems to me that any differences are being greatly exaggerated. But to make this claim with regard to images posted here drifts well into the world of fantasy.

Smeggy - "..the tiny differences in detail of the K-5IIs and other K-5 models are irrelevent in practice.."

This is very likely to be correct, and an explanation can be found by studying the information and images on the following dpreview page -

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/13

(On other pages of this dpreview review of the original K-5, they refer to the "weak AA filter" of the K-5's sensor.)

Philip

Thank you for your posting these images David but -
With those who see focusing differences affecting the images - I agree.
"I'm not sure these examples prove anything one way or another" - I agree.
"I cannot see anything between the 2 cameras in these shots" - I agree.
"Whatever the truth is, both the IIs and the standard K-5 are great cameras" - I agree.

Philip

Louise, I like these interesting documentary shots of the real Salisbury, and the following is, of course, just an opinion on a matter of personal taste:

With the exception of the steps to the waiting room and the old coal bunker, the images seem rather high in saturation and contrast. For me these effects create unnatural and/or dark regions in the photos, but that might be precisely the look that you wanted.

If the high saturation and contrast was not intentional, check the settings in the camera's Custom Image setup menus. Also, your K-30 is good at recording data in the dark areas which can be enhanced in processing, even from Jpeg image files.

Philip

See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5 and then just add £160 or £280.

Philip

Is this possible with the K-5, John? If so, how is it done?

Philip

It might, but the bright colours are the main attraction for me.

Philip

The last picture is a good one. The window is important but rather for its contribution to the lines and shapes. The striking features are the blocks of vivid colours - the blue of the reflected sky contrasts so well with the dark orange, bright orange, yellow and white of the house. Well seen.

Philip

Pentax included a note about this in the K-5 manual (but not, it would seem, in the K-30 manual):




Philip

I doubt that I would ever be buying one of those - if I did I would never be able to afford to go anywhere to take photographs. Hang on... here's wondering - is it powerful enough to shoot all my images without having to leave home?

Philip