As far as I'm concerned, if one type of noise-reduction enables me to get the same results as I would with an image taken at two stops less ISO processed with another application, then I am getting two stops from noise-reduction, whatever anyone else wants to call it.

I've hung in with Pentax, since changing from Olympus about 5 years ago, but I may be just about to jump ship, depending on reviews of the A7s. The K3 has been a bit of a disappointment for me, it's just not the upgrade from the K5 I was expecting, at least not for what I want a camera to do. I really like the ergonomics of Pentax cameras, and the great selection of lenses available, from ancient primes to newer lenses. The main thing that has kept me with Pentax, however, is in-body stabilisation (which my Olympus had, but the sensor wasn't good enough). The ability to stabilise old primes is a real plus point for me. However, there's things I want to do which both my K5 and K3 are just not capable of. The big disappointment for me is that the K3 has proved to be worse in low-light/high ISO than both my GR (which I'll definitely be keeping), and the K5.

Unless a FF Pentax with a sensible amount of megapixels (24 or preferably even less) comes out this year, I'm going to look elsewhere. It's largely inertia, expense, and the large amount of lenses I have that has stopped me changing systems already. If I do, I think it'll be a permanent move; I'm not one for chopping and changing.

I don't have a K5IIs, so I'll give my thoughts on the K5 vs K3.

In optimum conditions, at low ISO, I find the K3 outperforms the K5 by a significant margin, in terms of detail. In less than optimum conditions, ie low-light/high ISO, or images where you have to remove a lot of haze, the K5 mk1 definitely outperforms the K3. I am finding that with the fairly extreme processing I have to do on aerial images, I am getting significant noise on processed ISO 100 images, which is not a problem with the K5. The noise reduction I have to apply to these images offsets any gain from having no AA filter, so I am having to use DXO Optics Pro for noise reduction on all aerial images (at ten minutes processing time per image),even if taken at ISO 100, which is not at all what I expected. I also find the WB a bit awkward to get right on aerial images.

Overall, I've been a bit disappointed with the K3, but then I am using it in more challenging conditions than most people would. I'm starting to think I would have been better off with a K5IIs. If you are going to shoot a lot of low-light images, I'd keep the K5IIs. As far as I am aware, the AF on the K3 and K5IIs are pretty similar, and the K3 is much better than the K5 in that respect.

As you shoot a lot of low-light stuff, I'd seriously consider DXO Optics Pro 9, it will give you an extra couple of stops in noise-reduction compared to anything else.

How come you are familiar with the smell of tramp's pants, Smeggy?

The end result looks nice...the first image looks like something that's been eaten before.

Skill in PP doth not a good picture make.....

I'd be interested in what technique you use to get rid of haze, though....

An amusing take on it here

Nowadays I rarely post in the Gallery, or look at it, as it's often full of lots of mundane shots posted by PU Plus members who seem to post 5 images at once. I occasionally post pictures in Your Photos, but don't expect serious critique, as it so rarely happens here. When honest critique is given, it is sometimes taken personally. Since getting an irate PM from a member early last year, who took exception to me thinking their image was not worth fiddling with any more, I've not bothered trying to give critique myself, and usually only ever comment on images I like, which seems to be the norm here generally anyway.

I think there should be a forum on here for totally honest and if necessary brutal critique, and another forum for people who just want to hear that their image is "nice" or whatever. It's all a bit wishy-washy at the moment. If people want to improve their photography, they need to be told what is wrong with their images, as well as what is right. As in most things, you can often learn a lot more from your mistakes that you can from your successes.

I'm just about to order one, from Bristol Cameras (currently £10 cheaper than SRS) and was wondering if anyone has used one yet, and if so, what your thoughts on it are? Is it quick enough to use for street photography, for instance?