Thanks for that summary. It seems clear that the K-5IIs is a step up.
While I don't do much AF shooting in low light I do shoot with lots of
extension at times, and I assume the that low light focusing would apply
to a macro lens with a bunch of tubes on it just as well to a genuine
low light scene. The K-5 is a great camera and I amd glad that Pentax
Ricoh decided to upgrade it. In a sense they are showing off improved
technology that we will see in future cameras and they are also making a
statement that they are still in the game. RIght now, I'm holding off on
acquiisitions in hope that a FF body comes along. If I were to know that
it will be a while I might go for one.
Mark
On 2/20/2013 3:08 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Yes, I know there is not so much difference overall, compared to the
plain K-5, but the improvements in AF (both its precision with
tungsten light and its much extended sensitivity to low light) make a
huge difference for me and the kind of pics I shoot.
As per the difference between K-5II and K-5IIs, in most cases the
sharpness is the same (other factors such as minimal motion blur and
subtle difference in focusing being more important than AA filter or
not). However, when all winds blow in favor, the difference is more
than noticeable.
Moiré? After 3,000 shots with the K-5IIs, I spotted it only twice. One
was a grid of an air conditioner (lost in the distance on a balcony
within a cityscape) and another one was a fabric in a still life I
setup on purpose to generate moiré. Not a big problem for me.
This I wanted to share before sinking into lurk mode because I am late
with deadlines at work.
Cheers,
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
