I should have mentioned that another way of reducing the file size to 2-3MB would have been to re-save with a lower JPG Quality setting. This leaves the pixel size the same. They don't seem to have specified a pixel size though.

--

It should already be 300 dpi off the camera

To check (and fix) .....

Download the FREE FastStone Viewer v5.5
http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

Install and view your file.

Copy the file first to a Temp Folder say C:TempPics

Open the folder in FastStone Viewer. Select the photo file.

It will show the Preview of the photo in the lower left corner.
Select the Preview with your mouse.
Right Click on the Preview
Select "Image Properties (Exif)" on the popup menu.

8th line down it shows the Image size and DPI

If it's not 300 x 300 Click the small DPI Box and
Set DPI ........ Just change the two values.
Click OK

It doesn't ask if you want to SAVE.....To check it's done....

Select "Image Properties (Exif)" on the popup menu AGAIN
It should show 300 x 300 Ignore the Print Size.

The file size should be unchanged. If it's too big Resize/Resample in FastStone changing only the Pixel Size (reduce them).

--

Same here. Seems to be Amazon SA ????

Thanks for the heads up

--

STU::: I heard you'd bought a keyboard with a CAPS LOCK.........

Must be just another rumour!

--

Very impressive shot.

--

So being able to pull back 6 stops on a K-5 doesn't appeal

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3910418

--

Sounds like a K-5 would be ideal for you Nigel

--

Just as MF Roll film (6x6 etc. ) had an unexplainable one stop greater tonal range on the Grey Scale than 35mm. 24MP FF cameras such as the A7 can produce much better results than 24MP APS-C.

For this reason Pentax need to release TWO cameras.

--

Excellent post Horst

A bird photographer DOES NOT NEED FF see about 6 mins in in this video....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbli8lh9Pcw

Chelsea prefers FF because she likes the shutter noise

You also get a BIGGER DOF with APS-C which is often needed for birds.
i.e. 400mm lens compared to 600mm equivalent on FF.

FF is just two APS-C shots blended together with possibly a 3rd shot to fill in the missing centre bit. Sharpness will be the same, but the size will be 2.1x bigger.

The result WILL BE BETTER because you don't have to include the poor edge/corner performance of the lens at FF







Anyone who hasn't already tried this must want FF just because they like spending money

--

They are mentioned a lot on the following site which is a highly reputable consumer site. Probably No. 1 in the UK. They have never denied that they own the rights even though they have Official Company Representatives posting on the site. One employee has over 5,000 posts. Anything incorrect on that site gets quickly ammended.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2735575&highlight=pentax+va...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3180358&highlight=pentax+va...

--