I've just submitted this as a report:

[quote="I"]The recent activity view, where you get to see the first few words of the most recent post on a thread, is great.

However, if that post starts with a quote from someone else's post (as many do), often all you see is the former poster's text, not the comment from the most recent poster.

And the tags are stripped, so there's no way of knowing this without opening the thread.

It would be better, if a [ quote ]....[ /quote ] at the very beginning of a post was removed in this view, so that the preview shows only the most recent comment.
[/quote]

Yes, granted. Unlike RAW+, where you can do RAW and JPG in the same exposure, there's no equivalent that lets you get PEF and DNG in one shot.

I found that although there was no visible difference in the pictures I compared (at 100%), there were minute differences in the histograms. These could easily have been accounted for by the fact that I was standing behind the camera - if I moved even minutely between shots it would have affected the reflected light in the room somehow.

The thing that worries me about all this is that if it was proved that Pentax had put out an inferior RAW format, it would be a gaffe on their part of shocking proportions. Especially since image quality is right at the very top of the things that make Pentax worth buying.

They'd be as aware of this as anyone, so it's one of these extraordinary claims that would need very good evidence to prove unequivocally.

[quote="George"]I suspect it's down to the fact that Adobe processes it's own format (DNG) better than Pentax's product - the PEF. Every converter is different.[/quote]I take this point, although has this been established as fact?

I used ACR 4.2 and CS3 when I saw no differences, so there is the possibility that Adobe had improved their PEF processing by the time I came along.

Another errant apostrophe, there, George, by the way. Tut, tut.

You mean the button is hidden in your browser, Don?

There was a claim over at PentaxForums.com some time ago to the effect that DNG was better than PEF, and I did some tests too. It was as controlled as I could make it (identical scene, lighting, exposure etc; then identical processing through to JPGs, using ACR 4.2 and CS3 in my case).

I could detect no differences at all.

Then the OP that had been claiming the difference repeated his tests and retracted the claim.

So I'd be interested in any new evidence one way or the other.

It looks exactly as I imagine it would in light like that.

So it's perfect

Not as much as Sockpuppet's.

[/quote]Yeah, I bet that really bugs people.

When the consensus is that the novelty has worn off, I'll probably change it. I expect it's already annoying George

It used to drive me completely nuts, when I was part way through the "posts since your last visit", and then accidentally closed the browser down.

Since then there were no posts since last visit, so I'd have to hunt for all the ones I hadn't got to.

Recent activity solves that, so I'm very pleased with that.

Most kind.

It was a bit noisy, so needed a bit of attention. And it wouldn't enlarge any more than this either - it's pretty soft really. But not too bad for the web.

Oh, and today's top tip:

When you're trying to take a picture of a fast-moving object, remember to turn off the 2s delay unless all you want is an annoying beeping and a dark viewfinder.