Just a K-5 IIs test.
Jim Beverlin wrote:
Ron - Then in your opinion does both the KII and KIIS take sharper, better defined images than the K-5?
I'll toss in my opinion, having just upgraded from a K-5 to a K-5II. The K-5II's great advantage is its very precise and consistent autofocus. My K-5's AF has a tendency to wander, resulting in fewer tack sharp images. In addition, I think that the K-5II is a bit sharper, independent of focusing accuracy. I suspect that the sensor and/or the AA filter have been tweaked slightly from the K-5, although I don't know that to be a fact. Personally, I think that the increased risk of moire with the K-5IIs is not worth the additional sharpness. I know many people claim that they have never seen moire, which simply means that they have not looked for it carefully and have never printed at a large size. I suppose it's also possible if they only shoot landscapes. Also, with proper deconvolution sharpening in the raw/capture stage, K-5II files can be brought up to the same level of sharpness as those from the K-5IIs, but you have to have the right raw convertor to do the job.