I guess I'd better remember to empty the bag before trying that oven trick, huh?

I have discovered fungus in all three lenses I keep in a particular camera bag. I have read that one bad lens can infect others. Now I'm wondering whether it's possible that the spores might live in the bag itself - perhaps in the foam? Do I have to get rid of my beloved old camera bag?

Good stuff. It all goes into the equation. I'm especially interested in the comparison to the D200. That should be coming down in price shortly and may be in direct competition with the K10D. Although it doesn't feel quite so good in the hand as the Pentax, it is made of metal, has a wider range of available lenses and flashes (I'm keen on getting a Sigma ring flash, naturally unavailable for the Pentax), and so on ... but several posters have commented that they prefer the IQ of the K10D to that of the D200.

To be fair guys, it's not my science, it's the Photozone reviewer's. I'm just using my eyes.

If everybody could please take a deep breath and calm down, I'll explain. I have been making photos for 25 years. I love film (and all its artifacts, such as grain) and until now have been suspicious of digital - and all its artifacts. Whether you're talking about image or sound, digital artifacts are abrupt, intrusive, inorganic, ugly, especially compared to the gorgeous randomness of analog, as seen, for example, in film grain. And, too, I like to tightly crop my images, which makes this all the more relevant.

Now, looking at samples of the output of various late-model DSLRs I can see that a few, particularly some Nikons, are close to approximating that smooth, organic, analog feel. However, having handled both the Nikons and the K10D, I prefer the shooting feel of the latter. Unfortunately, it seems plainly obvious to me that at the pixel level (and after all, digital images are ultimately comprised of pixels) there's still a jagged, digital look.

I, personally, don't like that. It doesn't make me a troglodyte, or psychologically impaired. As far as I am aware I do not possess perverse personality quirks, such as posting screeds of replies to a forum thread without once attempting to seriously address the issue at hand.

However, my question has been answered, in a way. I perceive that the K10D is capable of inspiring great loyalty in its owners, which inclines me ever more towards taking my first step into digital with the Pentax platform. Just maybe not with this camera.

You may be right. I'm just paraphrasing the Photozone review. I suggest you read it for yourself, then you can disagree with it directly.

Thanks Dan. It is very hard to see, but there may be a couple of 'phantom pixels' sparking off the end of that shoe. In that context I agree with you, it doesn't matter. I think the Photozone reviewer made a good point when he stressed that the problem was most acute on straight, artifiical or architectural details.

Now it so happens that for my sins I'm a typography buff so I was especially disappointed in the results with the labels and batteries on the DPReview site, and confirmed by this image here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/dslr/pentax_k10d/iso/iso100_acr37.jpg (large file). On the can, the fine red lettering and the black outline on "Repel" look really crude to my eyes. Frankly, I think it looks bad.

Now, you can accuse me of pixel peeping, but for the life of me, I can't see that any resolution benefits from a weak AA filter can outweigh such an obvious disadvantage.

My eyesight must be phenomenal (Could be the Pentax lenses in my specs!).

That seems a bit harsh - on DPReview and the people, like me, who use it! I doubt anybody at DPReview would claim that they are making great art with their test cameras. They are simply putting them through a battery of tests to try and ascertain relative performance in different areas. The site is a great resource for someone who is about to stump up for an expensive camera and wants to avoid any nasty surprises.

Besides, I would submit that the issue we have been discussing is readily discernible at less than 100%. It goes to the heart of a camera's performance, that is, its ability to produce smooth, natural images in a range of situations.

I'm not in the least hostile to Pentax. If I don't buy the K10D on the basis of this (as I see it) "flaw", I will probably hold out for the next model in hopes that it has been addressed.

Cheers

Peter

The issue I'm referring to is not a fault with DPReview, but surely the one identified by the Photozone reviewer. I guess you guys have answered my original question, which is that the issue has not been identified (as least, not identified as a problem) or "fixed" in subsequent updates. It may not even be a problem, as such, in that, in theory, it increases resolution (apparently).

Interestingly, the specific problem with the RAW Royal Seal crop (and the lettering on the battery, too, by the way) is not present in the jpeg crops. The more I look at those jpeg crops, the more I like the quality, eg in comparison to the edgy, over-sharpened Canon one (different resolutions notwithstanding). The softness there looks like something I could handle in Photoshop.

Thanks for your replies!

Peter