Just Posted: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs studio test images: Digital Photography Review

Er, even if I'm not the first to ask that question: Will the K-5 II/IIs get its own full-blown review here on this site - I mean anytime soon? I'm not posting this to indulge in any sort of whingeing, but because I'm genuinely interested in how these cameras would do in your tests, since the studio samples look so promising ...

0 upvotes

I have the K-5 IIs and I'm relatively happy with the camera. I've owned a Hasselblad H2 with P30 back and although the P30 back provides great image size at 31MP in a MF sensor, it lacked a lot in terms of dynamic range. My K-5 IIs uniquely has amazing DR.

I'm now looking at getting some older Pentax lenses to use on this newer camera as I have a strong belief the combination of a good older prime with the IIs will really complete my kit.

1 upvote

This is a quote from DXOmark re the K5II(not IIs)

"The Pentax K-5 II is a remarkable piece of kit, it scores better in the DxO mark tests than several very highly thought of, full frame DSLRs, beating all the cameras made by Canon! It manages to do this in a body that is very reasonably priced. Add to this that you can fit lenses to the K-5 II that Pentax made as far back as 1975 and the multitude of independent lenses that are available and this camera becomes not only a remarkable performer but also a fantastically versatile camera at an exceptional price."

0 upvotes

The K5 required so much focus tweaking that I want to see real word reports before switching to another K5 camera. You also can not just copy K5 settings to the K5II, you need to do this manually. Low light AF performance of the K5 just stinks, same for articifial light sources.
In most situations the K5IIs shows better performance in the test images compared to the K5 or K5II - checking many areas and especially the borders one wonders how much is due to sample variation of camera and/or lens - the K5II is basically the same as the K5 for me while the K5IIs looks significantly more interesting - even at low ISO.
This little improvement is worth mentioning as we can collect more information in the same file size. 36MP FF cameras are nice, but file sizes are killing.
What is missing in the Pentax lineup is a clear statement for APS-C or FF, at the moment the user is offered APS-C lenses almost solely, but awaiting a FF system. More serious lenses are needed as well along with a TC.

0 upvotes

One of the most annoying aspects of the Canon 7D / 60D's I've used is how the camera's 'sludge-up' strong colors, particularly reds or colors consisting of intense reds. Drives me nuts when shooting macro work and trying to reproduce those with any kind of gamut range or detail. You can see this with the simple studio comparisons right here and how the K5IIs *doesn't* do this compared to all the Canon APS-C cameras. Along with at least a stop of lattitude in the basement, and a few orders of magnitude less noise, yadda, yadda, yadda. In terms of I.Q., I'll happily take those over extreme scenario moire'. My fellow Canon users will still stick their thumbs in their ears though and scream "I can't hear you". Well done Pentax. That's a serious amount of detail from that sensor.

4 upvotes

K5II/IIs sure nice cams in almost every aspect. As a K5 owner to me the main difference in spec is AF performance in low light. I don't really get used to the phase detect FFocus issue, always need to use Liveview in critical light as a workaround (using contrast AF). Pentax never fixed that on the K5. Now if I supposed the FF issue has been addressed on the updates, I still wouldn't buy - don't like the thought of spending so much for a fix.
But for everyone else who can afford the new K5 I think it is a good buy.

1 upvote

IIs looks surprisingly good!

2 upvotes

Despite the minute 'upgrade', the K5-family is still a great DSLR, stacking up well against any APS-C and smaller system. Previous posts have questioned the lack of appeal when stacked up to the new wave of mirrorless models, let alone competitive APS-C DSLR's but I own an X-Pro 1 and can name a few key points:

- the weather/shock proof design & durable pro-grade shutter. Only the OMD (and K30) is sealed and while being a M43, isn't so compact comparatively when lens, grip, etc are attached. And compared to other DSLR's it's def smallish.

- the button layout is incredibly well done. The AF switch stands out in particular. I got my X-Pro 1 bc being able to make adjustments tactilely and with the camera at eye-level make the camera a more useable tool. The Pentax trumps that and just about any other camera close to its price tag and def below...a plus for sports, street and candid photography.

- AF Speed. Many MILC's claim super fast focusing but I don't know of any that dont struggle in AF-C and low light. The K5 is ver good at focusing.

- Price. For those looking to build a new system, the original K5 can be had with the weather resistant kit lens for $900 in the US! It'll only be a matter of months before a similar drop will be seen in te successors. Good deal for anyone looking for a great camera.

14 upvotes

Amen to that. I have always found the combination of K-5's size, its excellent handling and its utilitarian good looks are without par in this class of camera and I'm glad the design gets another lease of life with the Mark II. I do hope Pentax have the good sense to stick with these design principles when they will eventually replace the K-5 line with a new model. But I am not optimistic about this as the recent introduction of cheesy looking cameras sporting odd shapes and baroque decorations (K-30) hint in another direction.

0 upvotes

The K-30 handles quite well, and the design does not impede use in any way.

0 upvotes

For the existing K5 users, the new duo doesn't look much of a temptation for an upgrade, unless of course money is no object. For those that are new to the DSLR and want the best in the APS-C class, they are serious candidates among its peers. The 7D after all these years received only a good firmware upgrade recently and the D7000 until now remains practically the same as ever.

2 upvotes

the improved autofocus would be a big consideration.

3 upvotes

K5 series are excellent cameras - but with 7D and D7000, you have MANY excellent lenses to choose from...

1 upvote

Fair, but with K5 you have enough excellent lenses to choose from, unless you're a pro. If you're a pro, most probably you wouldn't look at APS-C anyway...

5 upvotes

@KonstantinosK

There are a lot of pro photographers out there that uses an APSC based DSLR

@kewlguy

But none from them are as good as the Pentax Limited primes.

0 upvotes

"kewlguy" you've missed here the very occasion to say nothing :-))))

0 upvotes

@fakuryu, I agreed with that the cost of buying DSLR with full frame is much more expensive these day. APS-C is better value for money at most as most would prefer for. APS-C is still continued to be improved over time. Best thing to take good quality photos with good lens, use raw file and use manual setting you get the best result out of it with APS-C sensor probably as good as full frame still though. Full frame has a bit of benefit it has more pixel per inch, and it has more light hitting larger area of cmos sensor though but cost is very dear still though. I still own 7D and still like it even with weather resistant. My dad 5D MKII did not come with weather resistant to compare which is a bit of problem though but really we hardly use camera on raining day or in extreme weather anyway. Australia weather is so gentle in climate to compare to northern hemisphere gets the most extreme of it.

0 upvotes

since when does a FF has more pixel per inch. Do I miss something. A 20 mpix FF has same pixel density than a 10 mpix APSC, thus it has lower all-round resolution, less detail catching, but better dynamic range and close shallow dof, and due to larger pixel size, better high ISO Noise managing. Compare a NEX-7 sensor to a FF 24 mpix of the A99 or D600, even ancient A900-850, D3x, and you will see that, at base ISO 100, in detail and sharpness, the NEX will smoke all the others in a pipe. Dynamic range is not that much visible, shallow DOF can be obtained with smaller sensor and wide open fast lens as well, while you can't get in depth sharpness with FF if the arrangement you use does not permits it. So, the only advantage FF bodies offer is Pro solid magnesium bodies, unconditional weather sealing and rock solid material. Now, similar bodies in APSC are common and used by Pro's, like D300, Fuji S5, Sony A77, Oly OMD, currently. For a news paper side this is plenty of picture quality

0 upvotes

When I was lucky enough to get my hands on a K5IIs engineering sample, I slapped my DA70 Limited and tried to produce moire but failed. Maybe it appears on shots that are out of focus?

0 upvotes

Judging by some comments, it seems this is exactly what 99.9% of the 'users' of K-5 IIs will do: take tens of thousands of shots of DPR's test picture, and then theorise about the value of this camera in the real world.

7 upvotes

The k5IIs has pretty crappy moire. What's curious is that the Canon 5D mk ii and iii both have it just as bad.

0 upvotes

Moire occurs seldom outdoors, but much more in studio shots and model closeups. But like in anything else, a smart photographer who knows his nose from an elbow also knows when to use a certain tool. So the actual question about K-5 IIs moire issue is this: can you say your nose form your elbow?

3 upvotes

considering moire ..pentax 645d is AA free and no complains about moire . my friend has this amazing tool using it in studio especialy.. and in land scape some times. he never complain about moire. is k5IIs some thing different\!!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

I'm considering both of them for a future purchae and found exactly the same. It doesn't help me decide, but it does make me realise moire won't be a factor in my decision.

0 upvotes

Seems that resolution may be a significant factor, the D800E doesn't suffer from moire where the K5IIs and 5D Mk2 (and MK3) do on the studio scene.

0 upvotes

Yeah, thats true getting moire is the most annoying problem you get. And using software to fix it is a challenge cos some picture moire looks less, some picture has too much moire. So you have to put more work to it in software to fix the moire if those were taken raw image. If it is taken in jpeg I am sure incamera will fix the moire for jpeg images. So yeah its giving them hard time to fix every moire image. But! My 7D still get mild moire even it has filter on it. So really it is impossible to have perfect one with no moire from any camera. The film images are the only one will be without moire.

0 upvotes

Crappy Moire??? Compared to what? Have you ever shot the K5IIs? Do you own one now? I'm betting you don't even understand what moire is! I own this camera and I can tell you what most people think is Moire is actually what you see when natural light hits elements with very close lines or patterns, the human eye even sees it at times. This camera has no AA filter which is what the D800E has which is the same as ALL medium format professional cameras. If you understood that professional commercial photographers ALL deal with Moire and don't seem to have a problem publishing their work and getting paid well as a result, you might understand why this camera is so good.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

(cont'd) So, while Pentax made a tiny improvement in these K-5 II models, others have all caught up. I am afraid Pentax is still a brand only for those who already have many Pentax lenses and who are unwilling to switch to other brands. Hoya has milked it so dry, there was nothing left and it takes time to get a genuine new model. So, hang on and hope that when it does come out, the K-3 is competitive, and that there are something new for the AF, the flash and that the DSLR market is not shrinking too fast and cut-throat. With no credible mirrorless solution, it is hard to be optimistic about its future, especially when you see "upgrades" like these K-5 II.

0 upvotes

K-5 had the best IQ for APS-C cameras. The closest was D7000. These 2 cameras were head and shoulders above others.

After 2 years, you would expect a big improvement, but what we see is in the K-5 II is next to nothing in the context of IQ improvement, when you realised that more and more cameras have essentially the same IQ. NEX-7 (which also has 24MP), and X-Pro1, X-E1 have arguably better IQ. NEX-5N, NEX-5R, and most likely the NEX-6, and some entry level DSLRS all have equivalent IQ. Then there are the E-M5, E-PL5, E-PM2 and GH3, and many more that have an IQ that is very close, but much more compact in size, not to mention significantly better features, e.g. AF.

What's the point?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

The focus point is usually in front of the camera, and the brains is usually the point in the back of the camera. Which exact point do you miss?

2 upvotes

It only takes a tiny size brain to realise the risk of staying in Pentax. Do you have that size?

1 upvote

This is not a new model, it's a refresh. The point is keeping a viable competitive camera in the markt until new models have been developed. Pentax is working on a new aps-c and a fullframe, but has not had the time to do that yet since the Ricoh take over.

1 upvote

Build quality, sealing, excellent controls, and, as you mention, excellent IQ for what will likely drop to a ~$1000 USD body.

The point is value, and Pentax has always had that in spades.

0 upvotes

my question is: what's your point? D7000 still has no improved successor, and so does 7D which is older (3 years). Pentax has done something good with those 2 cameras. and I'm sure that Pentax will release another high-end aps-c camera in early 2013. we'll see what's coming next year..

0 upvotes

Good points, Sergey... but the final point is, in IQ, it already beats all the Canon cameras, including full frame models (according to DXOmark) and also all the others you mention. You're right, no need to upgrade if you have a K5. But... for people wanting a compact DSLR with a nice viewfinder, easy navigation, great handling, the K5 or K5 II is a bargain. And you can adjust the focusing for each lens and save the setting (+8 on my 50 f2.8 macro is spot on).
A smaller body isn't necessarily better. Mirrorless isn't necessarily better. Faster autocusing isn't necessarily better, unless you're shooting sports or chasing kids.
Some people like a camera that feels solid in the hand, has a nice optical viewfinder, and is super easy to use. Pentax also has some very fine prime lenses, so it's a way to get fine quality still images at a bargain price.
The point is... don't fix something that ain't broke, just make some minor improvements for those coming in new.

0 upvotes

Personally, I'm thankful that more people don't get it! I prefer to keep this camera and the older Takumar and Flektogon lenses as one of my best secrets!

0 upvotes

As a K-5 owner for neigh on 2 years now, I was intrigued by the mark2.
From comparing RAW files between the mk1 mk2 and mk2s (plus the K30) it seems that Pentax keep improving on a winning formula. Take the (arguably) the best current APS-C sensor, and find ways of getting the best out of an already excellent sensor.
Now the MK2 does improve the IQ over the mk1. It appears just a little bit sharper. The mk2s - WOW! The detail is excellent, even up to ISO3200 and beyond.
Will I get either mk2 when I have already have a mk1. Well if it was a change, possibly not, but the mk2s does give you more detail. But as I do have a need for dual cameras for a lot of work, then yes, I would, retiring the K20D in the process.
It will be very interesting what the FF Pentax will be like when it is out in the next 12-18 months, especially if they get the same out of the FF 24MP sensor.

Kudos to Pentax, you have pulled yet another excellent camera(s) out of the bag.

1 upvote

> As a K-5 owner for neigh on 2 years now <

For nigh on 2 years now, I've been neighing like a horse! I need a doctor! :-)

1 upvote

LOL, blame my typing and spell checker.... :-)

2 upvotes

Every new camera will keep improve all the time. It gets better every year so on and on. Thats how it is. But sometimes they go backward a bit it happens.

0 upvotes

There is a good reason why it takes Pentax two years to turn out a new camera when it only takes Canon and Nikon two months! Canon and Nikon are the "Microsofts" of the camera world whereas Pentax is the "Apple" brand. As Steve Jobs said it best, "get it right the first time!"

0 upvotes

Pixel peepers making a big difference out of nothing again. Difference between the K-5IIs and K-5II is less than the K-5II and K-5. Yet the difference between the K-5 and K-5II is no difference except testing error where a different focusing point *and* aperture was used. So in a word there is practically no difference in all three except that the K-5IIs is gimmicky in giving some pixel peepers emotional satisfaction at the expense of moire. If slight differences in focus makes a bigger difference at f8 or f9, what do you think makes the biggest difference in real-life at wider apertures? I would have to guess lens performances at wide-open + AF performances of your camera. So the big question here should be how much better is the AF on the K-5 II over K-5

5 upvotes

Can't comment on the K5 vs the K5 iis as I've just upgraded from a K7, but yesterday I was “stretching” the K5 iis, or thought I was. I was photographing carvings in a church by available light. By early afternoon it was getting so dim that the only way that I could “see” to frame the shot was to use the pattern of yellow “under exposure” dots in Live View, then switch back to normal view, press AF (ever the optimist) & take the photo (ISO 800, 15 secs, 300mm of zoom – target 30 to 40 feet away, DNG & JPG). Two things impressed me greatly about the K5 iis. First, out of 16 shots taken that way, AF locked onto 14 at the first attempt and got the other two at the second. 15 shots were pin sharp & one was slightly soft (but not by so much that I couldn't rescue it in PP). Secondly, as a K7 user I pretty quickly became practised at fixing noise, and was expecting to need to do the same for those shots – K5 iis good low light performance or not. There wasn't any noise!!!

0 upvotes

Thanks TomC67, I'm very glad to hear this. Since I got my K-7 in 2009, I've been increasingly less happy with its performance. I checked out the image samples here and on other sites and came to the conclusion that an upgrade from the K-7 was justifiable (and needed in order to resuscitate my favorite hobby!). Just ordered a K-5 IIs earlier today, even before reading these comments. I'm already excited!

0 upvotes

I think one of the more interesting points is that the K-5 II output is different from the K-5, and I think I like it better.

I happen to have purchased the K-5 IIs to complement my K-5.

It's clear that the K-5 IIs is a trade-off. It gives a more 3D effect than I see with the other cameras. For example, the needle going into the X on top of the playing card looks like I could reach out and grab it on the IIs. I even see it out-doing the D800E in some respects, like this one. But the D800E has the obvious MP advantages and handles moire better when a scene is viewed at equivalent size.

At other places, like feathers, they almost pixelate too much - that is, like the "jaggies," which is exactly what an AA-filter adjusts.

Fortunately moire hasn't been an issue for me in real-life shooting. But it will happen.

Overall I think the K-5 IIs has been a good choice for me. It certainly allows resolution that differentiates my better lenses from the rest, and gives me new capabilities.

4 upvotes

By applying my regular workflow for high iso shots using DNoise 5, I was able to get the same level of detail at ISO 6400 out of the K-5 IIs then what I am able to get of the K5 at ISO 1600. On my K-5, Iso 1600 is as far I as allow myself to go where critical sharpness is needed. That means that the "S" version can retain effectively about 2 stops in level of detail that can be kept while applying noise reduction. That is very significant. In my case, this means an extended range of shooting early morning, late evening and when using TCs.

I tried pushing it to ISO 12800 and although the level of detail was almost as good as ISO 1600 on the K-5, the level of noise was starting to be quite high so I would not consider this "usable".

6 upvotes

K-5 uses SONY's 16mp sensor. K-5II and IIs use a slightly improved sensor based on the same 16mp unit. Slightly lower power draw and noise but not 2 stops.

1 upvote

What strikes me - and relieves me a bit in the light of the comparisons on ImagingResource - is that the K-5 IIs RAW output does look a tat better than that of the K-30. And while I'm not going to start another outcry by claiming that the K-5 IIs can match the Canon 5D Mk. II/III, from what I see in the test image, I find it hard to convince myself that the Canons are that much better as to justify the premium over a K-5 IIs. If you want to do fairly serious photography on a budget (like I do), and know what you're doing with regard to moiré, the K-5 IIs seems like an excellent value proposition ...

7 upvotes

I am very impressed by the qualities and relatively low price of the k5--definitely offers some advantages over my 5d2.
If pentax would offer a couple of decently fast standard wide primes (35/2 and 28/2 equivalents), i might buy one as a backup.

0 upvotes

Not sold on the FA 31mm F1.8 LTD, FA 35 F2.0 or the DA 35 F2.4?
Or sigma's 28mm F1.8 and 30mm F1.4?

0 upvotes

Madaboutpix: The K5IIs doesn't match the 5DMKII or III... it matched the 5DMKIII and BEAT, YES BEAT the 5DII by one point! DXO is an independent lab, they have no reason to lie about test results. Pentax has found a way to tweak Sony's sensor with software and removing the AA filter to make this camera compete with it's full-frame counterparts. I can tell you as a former 5DII owner, banding is not an issue on my K5IIs as it was on my 5DII. My pics are sharper now, richer and have much better DR than those of my Canon 5DII, even shot with Canon's BEST 'L' glass.

0 upvotes

After applying standard sharpening to both K5-II and K5-IIs, the sharpness/detail gain on the "s" version is very obvious and I would a more significant improvement than what the megapixel race has offered over the last few years. As far as moire goes, I suspect that it will show up more when shooting"printed paper" things than real world things, because of fine patterns created by offset printers and other printed material.

1 upvote

I've just upgraded from a K7 to a K5iis. As I was fine tuning the focus of my lenses I came across an example of the K5iis being sharp. The lens combination was a Sigma 170-500 set at about 300mm at f11 with a Tamron MC7 2x converter, and “surprise surprise”, when pixel peeping, it was slightly softer than without the converter & the lens set at 500mm.The MC7 is a pretty sharp converter, so the real surprise was that I could see the difference with the K5iis, because on the K7 I can't!

0 upvotes

How come it appears before the 5200 instead of being on the top of the list (timewise)?

0 upvotes

It's happened loads of times on DPR front page - the editor shuffles the display order to be non-chronological the moment a Pentax product looks like it may appear first.

It could be that they know Nikon users can't read quickly so they push it to top position :P

Actually I think they are just making a judgement call as to what will be popular on the day and ramp that up to the top. It's normal and I don't think it's conspiratorial.

0 upvotes

It has nothing to do with brand bias. Previews get priority over everything else, except reviews of course. This is not a preview, only an announcement that they have added studio test samples.

2 upvotes

For me Not an option

reg

0 upvotes

Always a nice camera, nice upgrade too, but too much moire with the "s" version for general use I think. Good landscape option though.

1 upvote

I suppose you mean " too much moiré " because the moire seems to be irrelevant in this context.

Joke appart, I agree with you, this camera is a very good APS-C camera and if I didn't aim to upgrade my 7D to a fullframe model, I could have gone for this Pentax which is solid, efficient, fast, seriously weather sealed, compact and affordable. I've tried it here and there five or six times and it's always a great pleasure to see how it works well, even in dim light.

1 upvote

I dumped Pentax when the K7 (nice camera, rubbish sensor) came out and went Nikon FF.

Never that impressed with Nikon or Canon APSC offerings though (trouble with all of them). I have a D600 but use a Fuji Xpro1 for "light" duties. Best of both worlds IMO, but a serious investment.

K5 should be seriously considered if you want an all rounder thats reasonably compact and not too expensive.

0 upvotes

I like and my Pentax K-5, built like a tank - only the inner life is sometimes very critical:
my K-5 is after about 3000 Shoots defect: AF / optical viewfinder unfortunately the service
Therefore, I will not buy a new first time ;)

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

K5IIs is the sharpest aps-c dslr sadly it's not suited for photographing stamps and bank notes.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

Or most other repetitive patterns. Worst in this example by far is the picture with the beetle.

2 upvotes

not true, it depends on scale and the type of pattern. Interference will only happen when pixel grid and pattern become too closely aligned. Take a close up of any of the examples of moiré in this pic and you won't see any moiré.

2 upvotes

You're assuming that a close up wouldn't be hampered by newly revealed smaller patterns. Which of course has no ground. I've seen plenty of real world samples already that show moire, even in things like facial hair. Which isn't quite as limited as you suggested (stamps and banknotes).

And let's not fool people into thinking that the removal of the AA filter means it will outresolve 24 MP APS-C cameras, because ceteris paribus it won't.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Photographying banknotes to the very little detail ? Humm... is there some counterfeiters expectations here ?

0 upvotes

I think you missed the point that moire effects are not limited to what we *see* in this scene, far from.

And that you're not going to get real detail beyond Nyquist, which is 3200 lph for this sensor, where 24 MP APS-C sensors already resolve beyond 3400 lph (up to their Nyquist at 4000 lph).

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Sure it's everywhere, even if you can't see it pics full of invisible moiré "the horror the horror"

0 upvotes

No need to throw in fallacies, your opinion will do.

0 upvotes

@TrojMacReady

I'm no expert, but expect you are correct, but thankfully pentax is offering something different. I'd like the high ISO performance of the pentax, but with 24 MP. If I have to chose one I'd prefer the low light option. I'll wait and see how the Nikon 5200 does, and I'm also considering the 5D mk2. It's a great time to be a photographer.

PS. I do agree with you sentiment, there are many times when moire can be a factor, particularly hair and fabrics, but for me these are unlikely to be an issue.

0 upvotes

@Troj In my opinion you are making up problems and are making unfounded claims (since you present no sources).

0 upvotes

sorry - I think you do not need the K-5 II or the K-5IIs if you own the K-5:
Differences are splitting hairs, not otherwise

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting

6 upvotes

LOL

0 upvotes

What's up with the Adobe colour profile for the K-5IIs version?? It's clearly different than the K-5II in raw and I would say it's incorrect (the reds, the yellows, the greens, etc. all mottled on a calibrated wide-gamut monitor).

0 upvotes

The part with the strings on the bottom is sharpest with the K5IIs. K5II is sharper than K5. Some extra in-camera sharpening?

Moiré is too present in the K5IIs for my taste.

2 upvotes

Nice camera. I hope Pentax can take some marketshare form Canikon with this.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

it seams like even K-5 II have weaker AA than K-5, on small globe word "zambia" is much sharper

2 upvotes

right..
look at the dog, IQ difference is more than marginal....

0 upvotes

I love marketing.
Omitting the AA filter makes little to no difference. But as the D800E proves ... lots of weirdos are willing to pay a nice premium for that.
Not to forget that we can argue the whole day about pros and cons of the AA filter.

5 upvotes

Overal sharpness of an image is not just a matter of pixel peeping. It gives a pic a more realistic sense. Almost at a subconscious level unless you know what you are looking for.

0 upvotes

Wow, fewer comments than the K-30 with the overcooked RAW files.

1 upvote

s is slightly sharper than non-s but Fuji X-tran is sharper and smoother still.

3 upvotes

Right. I find it hard to believe there's nothing close to it yet. I thought the random placement of pixel would produce less sharp images, but it's not. For the skeptics, do not compare using RAW.

1 upvote

at some parts of the pic it is, at other parts is fuzzier and woolier. This scene has to much DOF so you must compare at different points. The K-5 beats anything when you look at the chart in the back, but looks fuzzy when you look at the watch in front. It's clearly backfocussing a bit. Overall i think de k5IIs is sharper but the fuji handels moire better, because of it's different cmos design.

1 upvote

Am I the only one to notice that the KIIs sets new records when it comes to moire? If you ever have to explain why most cameras still have expensive AA filters, here's your example.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting

7 upvotes

You must be looking at different images to me - KIIS looks far sharper to me - please tell me where the moire is and I'll get my magnifying glass out.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

andrew...look at the beetle and the background behind it. It's obvious in jpeg and more so in raw mode. It's visible in other places too but to me that's the worst offender. You won't need a magnifying glass. Otherwise, it's pretty dang good all the way up the iso range especially considering the pixel count.

3 upvotes

Am I the only one here who can't stop thinking what Pentax wouldn't be able to do with that Sony 24mp fullframe sensor (or even the 36mp)?

6 upvotes

Alas, Pentax shot itself in the foot long time ago by refusing to compete in what now seems the market sector with the most growth - FF. They are paying the price for lack of vision.

1 upvote

Am I the only one that thinks the K-01 uses the same sensor as the K-5 IIs with no AA filter? Also noticed the K-5 still looks really good.

2 upvotes

Now you mentioned it, I also noticed both have moire on the face.

1 upvote

i agree

1 upvote

The K-30, which has the same sensor as K-01, shows moiré too, but not quite as much as K-5 IIs. So maybe K-30/K-01 have an AA filter, but a weaker one than K-5 II? If they had lacked an AA filter altogether, like K-5 IIs, then surely Pentax would have mentioned it in their marketing?

1 upvote

I wish it was the fault of my poor eyes, but I can't prove myself to upgrade from K5 to K-5 IIs from the comparison. Hope I'm wrong.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Unforfunately, the K-5 IIs shows a substantial amount of moire in this particular scene. Though the K-5II is looking pretty good.

1 upvote

Wow! The K5-IIs is the new High ISO king for APS-C cameras! Impressive, indeed!

13 upvotes

Maybe you didn't look at the X-Pro1 which is obviously an APS-C camera. The XP1 may not offer 51200 ISO, but it sure is cleaner at every ISO through 6400.

2 upvotes

Yes, you are right! I simply forgot the Fuji X-Pro. My bad!
Then.... the K5-IIs is the new High ISO Prince! :)

3 upvotes

Sorry, the K-5 IIs is well sharper with much more detail than Fuji X-Pro1. Therefore still KING. Please try RAW 200 (Fuji doesn't do ISO 100) Martini seals.

11 upvotes

He said high ISO not resolution king. Try RAW at any ISO and the XP1 is cleaner. I've used both the K-30 and XP1 and the XP1 handily beats it in low-light and produces fine detail better. But both the XP1 and K5 IIs do not have AA-filters so they are sharp as can be. But look at the medallion above Mickey Mouse where the X-Pro1 is handling moire much better than the K-5 IIs.

1 upvote

Looking at the raw images, the X-Pro 1 is applying a heavy NR. At ISO 3200 it has a water color painting effect (look at the feathers). Some details are lost. I've heard that Pentax uses a light amount of NR too. I think the raw output should be left alone so that the potentially more sophisticated converting/editing software can be left to handle the NR to the desire of the user.

10 upvotes

Ditto for ISO 6400 RAW on Martini. (Easily removable in PP) moire by Mickey - yes. Even N D7000 has some. However, destructive NR of Fuji kills substantially detail on my LG monitor. BTW, I own K-5 IIs and "loving" (it's a tool) it...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Do not consider the RAW from the Xpro1 as DPR didn't used Fuji's raw converter. Instead, compare using JPEG.

3 upvotes

Sorry MArike6, but no, but i don't see a sharper image for the XP1, au contraire :
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=pentax_k5iis&masterSample=imgp0096.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=pentax_k5iis&slot0Sample=imgp0096.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d600&slot1Sample=dsc_4509.acr&slot2Camera=fujifilm_xpro1&slot2Sample=dscf2008.acr&slot3Camera=nikon_d7000&slot3Sample=dsc1_1875.acr&x=-0.41912350597609555&y=-0.09777712010734835&extraCameraCount=0

0 upvotes

Good work pentax.I like the pentax approach in that way.If you have a very capable camera/k5/ why I should go to a may be weak sensor/24mp/!
but dont give me an old sensor in the same price as a new one!

0 upvotes

Is it me or does the K30 look just as good?

0 upvotes

One other thing, I have read a lot of reviews on the D7000 and Canon 60D and by the looks of comparing some images cropped at high ISO's the Nikon doesn't appear to be better then the Canon. ANyone comment on that? I mean the lowdown on everything i have red is Nikon for image quality and Canon or video.

0 upvotes


Just Posted: Pentax K-5 II / K-5 IIS Review Jun 4, 2013	Pentax updates firmware for K-5 II/IIs DSLRs and Q mirrorless camera Apr 19, 2013	Review in progress: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 II S Apr 16, 2013	Pentax posts firmware updates for K-5, K-5 II, K-5 IIs, K-30, K-01 and K-r Jan 31, 2013

	Pentax Efina Jun 3, 2013
	Olympus PEN E-P5 May 10, 2013
	Samsung NX2000 May 1, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Apr 24, 2013
	Ricoh GR Apr 17, 2013
	Samsung NX1100 Apr 11, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Apr 9, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix S8400W Mar 22, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix XP200 Mar 22, 2013

Considering switch from Nikon, to replace D700 ...	150
Sobering Sales Numbers for Mirrorless	150
New Pentax K-50 leaked	75
Hmmm AF fine tuning : Bullsh#t	66
Praise the Macro Lenses. Post your best macros ...	49
Poor digital camera sales continue....	48
How to turn my Canon PowerShot S3 IS into a ...	42
Still no signs of an Olympus f2.8 zoom?	39
Help me create the best 6D system on a $3500 ...	36
Selecting Camera	36
electronic first curtain shutter - on or off?	35
K5(II) SD Card Door Coming Open	34
USPS... The worst mail servie in the world	34
Mirrorless & DSLR Jan-April shipment & ...	33
Sigma 60/2.8... sigma be damned (for its ...	33
Done Deal - Switched to Fuji XE-1 from ...	31
Focal reducers, why complexity for the sake of ...	30
What's Happening to Sony Stores?	30
micro 4/3s , Owls IF	30
Replacing Olympus OM-D with Fuji XE-1 or Xpro-1	29

Just Posted: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs studio test images

Pentax K-5 II

Pentax K-5 IIs

Comments

Your email address:
Your name: