Previous page Next page

Detail and Moiré K-5 II vs. K-5 IIS

Those seeking extra detail in their shots might be tempted by the K-5 IIS's lack of a low-pass filter, something we’re seeing more companies drop from their SLRs as resolutions increase. Anti-aliaising filters are designed to slightly blur the final image, so in very simple terms, removing a sensor's AA filter should increase sharpness. What’s the risk? Primarily aliasing artefects moiré patterning, which is created when the frequency of patterns in your subject begins to exceed the frequency of the grid of pixels on the cameras' sensor.

Moiré is commonly seen in the repeating patterns of fabric, but nature has its repeating patterns as well, including palm fronds, grasses, feathers, and even fine ripples on water. 

We worked on this question of the relative benefits extensively with the Nikon D800 and D800E and found that as we'd expect, using a good prime lens both cameras delivered best central sharpness between around F3.5 to F5.6 (note that lenses typically achieve the best evenness of sharpness at slightly smaller apertures). Given that the pixel pitch of the K-5 II is about the same as the D800E (which offers an output resolution of 15MP in DX crop mode) we were not surprised to find the same thing with the K-5II and IIS.

During the course of this review, we shot comparison samples at various apertures - large and small - and consistently saw more moiré in images from the K-5 IIS. Within this optimum aperture range of F3.5 to F5.6, we found that where moiré was visible from images with one camera, it was also present in shots from the other, but the patterning was more intense in the pictures shot with the K-5 IIS. As we left this aperture range and shot between F5.6-11, the K-5 II lost the tendency toward moiré likely thanks to relative increase in diffraction, while the K-5 IIS still showed the effect in some scenes.


K-5 II, 18-135mm lens, 1/20, F4.5, ISO 100 K-5 IIS, 18-135mm lens, 1/15, F4.5, ISO 100

As you can see from the JPEGS above, taken at F4.5, moiré made an appearance in images from both cameras. This is a particularly moiré-prone fabric, but it's a fairly common Glen-plaid design any event photographer is likely to encounter. Fashion photographers will be all too familiar with the effect.

K-5 II, 43mm lens, 1/100, F7.1, ISO 100 K-5 IIS, 43mm lens, 1/100, F7.1, ISO 100

We were more surprised to find moiré in a far darker coat, the blue blazer captured in this shot at portrait distances, at a relatively small aperture of F7.1.

Studio Comparisons

Looking at our Studio Comparison Scene, shot at F8, the K-5 IIS plainly shows moiré in some feathers, currency samples, and the focus scale. All crops below are at 100%.

This is our studio test scene. With APS-C format cameras we shoot this scene at F8 at an equivalent focal length of ~85mm (or as near as possible). This aperture is selected because it generally provides good edge-to-edge sharpness, and enough depth-of-field to render the main image area in focus.
K-5 II - JPEG  K-5 IIS - JPEG 
 K-5 II - Raw   K-5 IIS - Raw 
 K-5 II - JPEG   K-5 IIS - JPEG 
 K-5 II - Raw   K-5 IIS - Raw 

We see moiré from both cameras, even at F8, which is most intense where we'd expect - the areas of finest detail. The blue feather shows moiré in the K-5 II's Raw shot, but in both the K-5 IIS's JPEG and Raw shots (the blue arcs radiating out from the left of the feather's center rib). The etching cropped above shows color moiré in the vertical lines, which are only slightly visible in the K-5 II images. As percentages of the overall Studio Comparison Scene, though, this effect is minor; were these frequencies to become more dominant in the scene, we might have more of a problem.

K-5 II, 50mm F5.6, 1/50, ISO 100  K-5 IIS, 50mm F5.6, 1/50, ISO 100 
K-5 II, 50mm F5.6, 1/50, ISO 100  K-5 IIS, 50mm F5.6, 1/50, ISO 100 

The crops above show areas from our new (forthcoming) studio scene, shot at F5.6 for best central sharpness. Exposures were captured in Raw mode, with sharpening turned off in Adobe Camera Raw and a basic USM (amount 100%, radius 0.6, threshold 0) added in Photoshop. The K-5 IIS gives crisper results, with fractionally more detail visible on very close examination. The fine text is better defined (especially visible the low-contrast black-on-gray) but pretty intense moiré can be seen in the white text on the black background. That said, the K-5 II also gives some moiré but it's less intense.

Outdoor, organic and non-organic detail

K5 II, 40mm lens - F7.1, 1/125, ISO 100 - Click to download raw (DNG) file K5 IIS, 40mm lens - F7.1, 1/125, ISO 100 - Click to download raw (DNG) file
100%  100%
100% 100%
100% 100%

Landscape elements do indeed show more detail in the K-5 IIS, but some elements with repeating patterns show moiré and other artifacts from both cameras. Detail in the trees is better, though, and moiré only occurrs in a few locations; it was difficult to find at first.


After looking at the above images, it should be pretty obvious which camera most people should choose for the lion's share of photographic situations: The Pentax K-5 II. Having more detail in a camera is always desirable in theory, except when that detail comes with colors and patterns that aren't there in the actual scene. Moiré patterning can be created by many things, but in this case it's caused by the interaction between the grid of pixels on the sensor and a pattern in the scene, and is unequivocally more of a problem in images from the K-5 IIS.

In our Nikon D800 review, we went over the situations in which the D800E (which also effectively has no low-pass filter) suffered moiré and decided that since both cameras exhibited the same artifacts to differing degrees, people would have to deal with them one way or another, and the Nikon D800E's images - particularly the JPEGs - were improved enough in terms of detail to warrant the risk for the sake of detail. After all, with the D800E's extremely high pixel count, most of the artifacts we saw made up a small enough percentage of the frame that it wasn't as big a risk. Here, as well, we see both cameras, the K-5 II and K-5 IIS, exhibiting moiré with good lenses at optimal apertures. We also see more apparent detail. But with the K-5 IIS the moiré is intense enough in those high detail areas where a suitable pattern is present to greatly diminish the advantage for general photographic purposes. This becomes quite apparent in our Resolution target.

We don't think it will be as great an issue in outdoor landscape photography, where repeating patterns are less prevalent, but wildlife photographers should take note of the potenital for moiré in hair and feathers. The problem with moiré is not just the rainbow patterns that emerge, because you can minimize or remove the color with filters; it's the pattern they leave behind even after you effectively remove the color that concern us. The blue patterns in the blue feather of our Studio Comparison Scene are an example of moiré that is very difficult to remove by just changing or blurring the colors.

In portrait photography you're less likely to shoot at apertures that give you too much detail, so stopping down out of the F3.5-5.6 danger range might make sense, but there are always exceptions, and the K-5 IIS is more likely to give you color errors right in the plane of focus on hair and clothing should you want to shoot at a wider aperture to accent an eye or other feature. Landscape photographers are less likely to shoot at wide apertures, as they usually seek the greatest depth of field. Shooting at smaller apertures can minimize moiré thanks to diffraction limiting, as we see in the camera with the very light AA filter (the K-5 II), but you have to stop down even more to eliminate it from the K-5 IIS, to the point where the slight benefit in resolution is negated.

As usual, which camera is better for general photography is open to interpretation; as such, we've tried to provide as many images as possible to help you make an informed choice. Likewise, what purposes are suited to the K-5 IIS's increased detail-gathering potential are also a matter of opinion. The good news is we had to look pretty closely to find the issues we've highlighted above, save for those in the Glen-plaid jacket; granted, we were looking there too, but we think the colorful rainbows are obvious enough in this case, and would appear in a larger print. Many will look at these and think the differences are negligible. As such, we'll stop short of not recommending the K-5 IIS in favor of the K-5 II; we just advise that readers consider carefully which is for them. Most of us would prefer to avoid the moiré as much as possible, as the K-5 II's detail is pretty good as it is, but note that none of our images were affected by moiré enough that we hesitate to shoot with the K-5 IIS.

For those who'd like to see for themselves whether shooting without a low-pass filter is better or worse, the K-5 IIS represents an inexpensive way to find out, compared to the D800E or medium-format cameras that the pros use.

Previous page Next page
I own it
I want it
I had it
Discuss in the forums


Total comments: 22
ranferi rodriguez

I love my K5IIs.

zos xavius

Even now this camera is amazing. I have a K-3 too and the K-5 IIs still gets regular use. It has been the most faithful and reliable Pentax I've had over the years. It's IQ has never let me down and is better than even the K-3 in certain ways. 16mp and decent lenses have given me beautiful poster sized prints. It's no D800, but its a lot smaller and lighter than one too. Paired with some small limiteds it is really hard to go wrong unless you need absolute speed or shoot sports. The files from the IIs have a crispness that the K-5/K-30/K-50 all lack. Removing the AA filter really makes a difference in a big way and has forced me to upgrade my kit to take advantage of it. Not that moving on to better lenses is ever a bad thing..... :)

There are tons of amazing and fun vintage lenses you can get for pentax for peanuts too. Yeah you can adapt them to other systems, but being able to just slap a lens on a mount and not worry about aperture or AF if the lens has it is nice.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

Why is "Pentax K-5" listed under "Semi-professional" whereas "Pentax K-5 II and Pentax K-5 IIs" listed "Mid Level"?

I'm planning to buy Pentax K-5.


Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

No mention that I saw on the review that the LCD screen has a GLASS outer layer preventing scratches and the use of those annoying LCD screen covers. The glass screen is an upgrade along with it being gapless (better anti-reflection and no more dust etc. between the screen and protective layer like the K5 exhibited).

The K5II/s are at killer prices now and are 10 times the camera a Rebel or comparatively priced mirrorless camera are. What's not to love about this one?

Tactical Falcon

I couldn't agree more. I looked at the Nikon, and Canon etc. The K-5II is such a terrific camera bargain.

1 upvote

Does the K-3 have a LCD with a glass outer layer too? Thx.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

I Have Both The K3 & The K5IIs i did not Like The K3 so i gave it to my Wife and took the K5IIs back ...they are both great cameras but i am use to the K5IIs setup
the K3 is all new inside.....


I see a lot of people asking if the K5 II is a good camera. After becoming too frustrated with point and shoot cameras I took the plunge and bought the K5 II. My wife and I LOVED it. It is true that the camera does not change focus during video capture, but that wasn't important to us. Heck, our little Cannon point and shoot took better video - but that may have just been our ambivalence. It was great at everything we wanted - immediate response, color and sharpness, low light capabilities, burst shooting, etc.. I say "was" because it is no longer with us. It may be water resistant, but it certainly is NOT waterproof - oops! When I can afford to, I will probably buy another.


There is no DSLR wATER resistant, as you painfully learned. For K-5II users , this is wEATHER resistant, to dust, light rain and snow. Hope you can get a new one soon.


a little late, I know, but just out of curiosity, what did you do ? Fall into water or just heavy rain or...?


Could anyone tell me why this is not a good camera for video? I love everything about it, but I would like to make videos too. I am hesitating between this one and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

Leandros S

If your requirement is "would like to make videos too", it may be good enough. You should ask yourself whether you're going to need to re-focus after starting your video. If the answer is yes, you should look at Panasonic and Canon. If you're shooting wildlife, inside churches, or other kinds of stage performances, this may not be a factor. In terms of quality, audio and video are excellent in the K-5 II and IIs.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
1 upvote

Ok - K-5II have better AF and... and... but why only 80%/ s-81%? If old version K-5 have 83%?
and Nikon D7100 have 85% - but everybody knows - who used this dslr's that Pentax is better...??

Derma pro

I heard and read alot about this pentax. and I believe it is a very good camera. what I know is that pentax k-5II is better regarding the details of the photo. and D7100 is better regarding the colors and the auto white balance. do you think the pentax is better is other situations?


DigitalRevtv on Youtube showed the K-5iis trouncing the D7100. I think the colors are better than the D7100 (Imaging resources comparometer). Stabilization in K-5 auto levels, perspective control + tilt shift capable, astrotracking + wides and primes are stabilized. D7100 only has a digital zoom & extra auto focus points (which are superfluous except for sport). Ask yourself how often do you switch from the center AF point? K-3 has got even more AF points- big deal ! I thought the image quality of the D7100 was a backward step from the D7000, high ISO was better too.


The S has everything I need [Time Lapse too], EXCEPT a LCD that moves/articulates. . . ughhh!!!!


The auto focus in low light is better and the redesign of the rear LCD has been change for better viewing in bright light. Not much else as far as I know. I purchased the K-5II because I often take photos in low light situations and can use all the help I can get!


Seriously, what is the difference between K-5 and K-5II? Every single specification are the same.


The removal of an anti-aliasing filter. this allows for sharper images in the II but sacrifices the tendency to produce moire.

Old Baldy

errrr. from the review "Pentax took a great camera and upgraded it with a faster autofocus system, an improved LCD, and largely left the rest alone - save for the effective removal of the low-pass filter in the K-5 IIS"

1 upvote

It has faster autofocusing, dousan. It has added AF sensitivity, as well, enabling it to autofocus down as low as -3 EV (making it one of only 2 cameras, APS-C OR FF, amateur, enthusiast OR PRO, with such sensitive low-light AF prior to Pentax's release of the K-3, which has the same low-light AF capability). Many Pentax shooters who've had all three cameras say it's the sharpest of the bunch, as far as pics go -- especially at higher ISOs. And, of course, the K-5 IIs also has NO anti-aliasing filter, which DEFINITELY makes for sharper pictures, but could ALSO mean you end up with MOIRE in some pictures (which Photoshop MAY be able to remove, so it's probably not the end of the world in most cases, anyway).

So IF you have a K-5 IIs, it has NO AA filter, which means ALL your shots will be a bit sharper and for most that won't present a moire issue.

Those are the major improvements of which I'm aware. I'm still deciding if I want one as a new second camera now that I have the K-3.

1 upvote

Can you see the moire in the view finder? I looking for the K-5 IIs as I already have a K-5 II. I need a second bosy so I don't have to change lenses

Total comments: 22