Just a K-5 IIs test.

Started 11 months ago | Photos
brandrx
Forum ProPosts: 25,812
Like?
Just a K-5 IIs test.
11 months ago

Hi folks,

I have already tested some of my very best lenses with this new K-5 IIs and I am satisfied with it's IQ. Now, I just wanted to test my Sigma 300mm f4 APO Tele-Macro on my new K-5 IIs. Images were converted from RAW to JPG using Photoshop Elements 6.0. The only thing I did in PSE6.0 was adjust the exposure to +0.7. No other PP was done on these images except for a slight cropping on images #1 and #2.

FWIW: For the kind of shooting that I normally do, so far, I cannot see all that much difference between my K-5 II and my K-5 IIs. Being the amature that I am, I could have been perfectly happy with just the K-5 II. However, the fact that I have to see things with my own eyes is the reason I bought the K-5 IIs to compare with my K-5 II. So, if I am walking out the door to go take images, I will grab either the K-5 II or the K-5 IIs without even caring which one it is that I grab.

Cheers.

Ron

-- hide signature --

Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx

Comment & critique:
Please provide me constructive critique and criticism.
Pentax K-5 IIs
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Jim Beverlin
Senior MemberPosts: 2,133
Like?
Re: Just a K-5 IIs test.
In reply to brandrx, 11 months ago

Ron - Then in your opinion does both the KII and KIIS take sharper, better defined images than the K-5?

JRB

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
robbo d
Contributing MemberPosts: 902Gear list
Like?
Re: Just a K-5 IIs test.
In reply to Jim Beverlin, 11 months ago

Looking nice and sharp to me..........

Waiting to fly home on Tuesday and give my new K5IIs a whirl then with the DA12-24, Sigma 17-50 and DA50-135 and see how much of an increase it will give me over the venerable old Kx. 

I suspect it's a bit like Valentino Rossi taking a nice road bike for a spin, then hopping on his race bike???

I still get a kick out of the Kx sensor comparison against even some new well known brands and seeing that, on paper anyway, still seems to keep them honest or in some cases apparently beat them in both IQ and DR.

 robbo d's gear list:robbo d's gear list
Pentax K-x Pentax K-01 Pentax K-5 IIs Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,504
Like?
Re: Just a K-5 IIs test.
In reply to Jim Beverlin, 11 months ago

Jim Beverlin wrote:

Ron - Then in your opinion does both the KII and KIIS take sharper, better defined images than the K-5?

JRB

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brandrx
Forum ProPosts: 25,812
Like?
Jim...
In reply to Jim Beverlin, 11 months ago

Jim Beverlin wrote:

Ron - Then in your opinion does both the KII and KIIS take sharper, better defined images than the K-5?

Hi Jim,

I shoot most of the time with f4 or f5.6 lenses in daylight. If that is all that I ever did then, IMO, there would be very little difference between the K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs. However, most folks also shoot in low light and/or artificail lighting, and many use faster lenses. Under those conditions the K-5 II and K-5 IIs is the better choice IMO. In addition, again IMO, K-5 II/K-5 IIs tracking via the Expanded Area AF in AF-C is better than the K-5 with just AF-C tracking. Note that in the preceding I mentioned faster lenses. IMO, the K-5 II and K-5 IIs are more accurate and more consistant with lenses that are faster than f2.8 than the K-5 is.

So, to boil it all down, if I had no camera at the moment and the choice was between the K-5 (about $600), the K-5 II (about $750 to $800), and the K-5 IIs (about $900 to $1000) then I would choose the K-5 II. If I already had a K-5 then I would just continue to wait for a month or two to see what the new K-3 is all about. Note: The preceding was written as if I also had to considered finances. The reason I own a K-5, K-5 II, K-5 IIs, and all of the lenses I have is because I don't have to concider finances.

Cheers.

Ron

-- hide signature --

Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Beverlin
Senior MemberPosts: 2,133
Like?
Re: Jim...
In reply to brandrx, 11 months ago

brandrx wrote:

Jim Beverlin wrote:

Ron - Then in your opinion does both the KII and KIIS take sharper, better defined images than the K-5?

Hi Jim,

I shoot most of the time with f4 or f5.6 lenses in daylight. If that is all that I ever did then, IMO, there would be very little difference between the K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs. However, most folks also shoot in low light and/or artificail lighting, and many use faster lenses. Under those conditions the K-5 II and K-5 IIs is the better choice IMO. In addition, again IMO, K-5 II/K-5 IIs tracking via the Expanded Area AF in AF-C is better than the K-5 with just AF-C tracking. Note that in the preceding I mentioned faster lenses. IMO, the K-5 II and K-5 IIs are more accurate and more consistant with lenses that are faster than f2.8 than the K-5 is.

So, to boil it all down, if I had no camera at the moment and the choice was between the K-5 (about $600), the K-5 II (about $750 to $800), and the K-5 IIs (about $900 to $1000) then I would choose the K-5 II. If I already had a K-5 then I would just continue to wait for a month or two to see what the new K-3 is all about. Note: The preceding was written as if I also had to considered finances. The reason I own a K-5, K-5 II, K-5 IIs, and all of the lenses I have is because I don't have to concider finances.

Cheers.

Ron

-- hide signature --

Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx

Ron - Thanks for the reply.  Your answer was pretty much what I expected.  My main issue with the K-5 is AF accuracy.  I tried out 4 lenses tonight for accuracy.  Lenses were the DA21, FA31, DA35 f2.8 macro and the latest addition to my arsenal a DA55.  The DA21 and DA35 lenses were spot on for accuracy whether at 2 ft or about 8 ft.  The FA31 and DA55 were good close up but not that good at around 8 ft.  Put both lenses on my K-01 and they were spot on.

Ran AF micro adjustment tests on the DA55 back about 6 wks ago mounting the K-5 on a tripod using the Pentax remote shutter release.  Shot off of my deck across the river into some wild Loostrife.  But the day had pretty good wind gusts so I doubt how valid the test was.

Want to repeat the test using the carton my Epson printer came in.  Has a lot of colorful graphics and text.  Figure I will place the carton about 30 ft away and see what I come up with using the micro adjustments.

-- hide signature --

JRB

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Beverlin
Senior MemberPosts: 2,133
Like?
Re: Just a K-5 IIs test.
In reply to Robgo2, 11 months ago

Robgo2 wrote:

Jim Beverlin wrote:

Ron - Then in your opinion does both the KII and KIIS take sharper, better defined images than the K-5?

JRB

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

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.

-- hide signature --

JRB

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads