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.

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.

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.

IIs looks surprisingly good!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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".

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 ...

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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)?

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.