Stefan, naar aanleiding van onze eerdere "discussie", uit deze test blijkt dus duidelijk verschil tussen de K5II en de K5 IIs. Er worden dus geen mieren ge....t.
The sensitivity on the IIs is excellent, as is to be expected from the 16-Mpx CMOS sensor. In terms of noise, compared to the K-5 II the difference is negligible. But the image on the IIs is sharper at low sensitivity, as you can see in the circuits on the video card shown above. And yet, we tested the II and IIs using the same lens (not just the same model—the same actual lens) and settings. And what we saw was effectively the result of having no low-pass filter, which increases the resolution by more effectively separating neighbouring pixels.
As one would expect, in this image we see the colour aberrations from the 18-55mm WR wide-angle lens. What's important to note here is the details in the lines: on the K-5 II there's a slight trace of interference before the lines disappear just below the 8, whereas on the IIs the lines continue above the 8, but with an oblique tilt that shouldn't be there! This is clearly caused by interference between the lines and the sensor's matrix.
You can also see the contrast between the II and IIs in this section of the test scene. The no-filter version on the left shows moiré on the circuits that isn't there on the image on the right. On the other hand, the vertical lines are sharper and there's more detail (the writing on the component on the lower right, the angles on the lower left...) where on the K-5 II version it's just blurry.
Perhaps the place you can see the benefits of removing the filter the most is in the texture on this book cover. The K-5 IIs provides more detail than 24-Mpx cameras such as the Alpha 77 (a direct competitor) and even the Nikon D600.
http://www.digitalversus.com/digital-camera/face-off/118ce9f75ad53f94470b5a94ddec94efd97da130Conclusie: de K5IIs is zelfs scherper dan de 24Mp sensor van de Sony en Nikon...........