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.
Rob - Thanks for the response. I shoot primarily primes and my biggest issue is AF accuracy. Having issues with my DA55 (no big surprise on this lens) along with my FA31. AF is spot on using my DA35 f2.8 macro and DA21. The DA55 and the FA31 were spot on using my K-01.