The IIs review states:

"The II delivers excellent, sharp images to screen or print and is up amongst the best performers in its class, and beyond. The IIs adds a sense of effortless clarity to the fine detail and absolutely excels at rendering texture. In a practical sense, whatever the measured numbers might be, the effect is there to be seen. Texture in paintwork, texture in hair, finer detail in complex masses of branches, are all clearly to be seen."

Do the test images really support those statements?

e.g.1: 100% crops from the portrait images -



e.g.2: 100% crops from the canal scene images -



(A 100% crop is equivalent to viewing a very large print of the whole image, e.g. 48 x 32 inches.)

It is clearly unfair for anyone to draw conclusions from real world comparison images shot without a reasonable level of scientific rigour. Not only are the subjects within each pair different in content, but the scenes' contents are also affected by differences in lighting and magnification - all factors that influence apparent clarity. However, from these, and other readily available test shots, it seems quite implausible to state in the verdict:

"I was keen to see for myself what difference, if any, the removal of the AA filter would make. The conclusion was quite obvious as soon as the images were examined. Removing the AA filter lends an incredible clarity to the detail in images."

Philip

How big do you print, Matt?

Philip

This (and a similar pre-purchase rationalisation) might explain the tendency of some to bury their heads in the sand but still claim they can see the Emperor's new clothes.

Philip

Someone who does not have these cameras readily available for direct comparison could perhaps decide to purchase one either on a whim or on a recommendation or by studying the evidence produced by others. In taking the latter route towards a decision, the available image quality evidence for choosing a K-5IIs over K-5II or K-5 is unconvincing.

Philip

The following is a direct quote from the Digital Photography Review (dpreview) web site's in-depth review of the original K-5:

"Thanks to the camera's comparatively weak AA filter the Pentax K-5 produces very good detail in both JPEG and RAW image modes."

This would also seem to suggest an explanation for what all the evidence clearly shows - negligible differences in image quality when that "weak AA filter" is no longer present.

Philip

Looking at 200% crops on a computer screen is equivalent to standing only about 2 feet away from an 8 feet wide print of the photograph.

From the evidence of example images presented so far, here and on other web sites, it would seem that in physics terms the K-5 IIs could be described as a quantum step up from the K-5 II for image sharpness. However, N.B. The definition - quantum (physics): the smallest quantity of some physical property.

So it remains my opinion for now that any differences that do exist between 5II and 5IIs images will not be noticed, when the images have been processed well and are presented at typical print or screen sizes and viewed from appropriate distances.

Philip

It's probably no consolation but a new washing machine should help to enhance colours, rather like a Pentax Limited lens does.

Philip

Another preference for #1 here.

It is a pity that #2 shows only half of the boat, but even so I would prefer it cropped 4:5 to remove the distractions above the bridge.

Philip

Thank you Stuart. It was snowing very fine snowflakes during 1 and 2, and they were shot through the car windscreen in between strokes of the wipers.

Philip

If there is any focus inaccuracy it is usually very small and only likely to become apparent when the depth of field is very small, e.g. close up work and/or using wide apertures. If there is no obvious problem in the images just leave it alone, but if you want to check it there are free charts and instructions here:
http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/part-1-autofocus-adjustment-for-pentax...

Philip