Yes. Thanks for that - it enabled me to find the thread.

But sadly the picture link is broken. I had a poke about in his Picasa gallery and I think it must have been one of the Burnham Beeches collection, but there are a lot in there and I don't remember it well enough to know which one.

I commented on its naturalness at the time.

Someone posted one not long back - a woodland scene. Can't remember who, now. But I thought it looked right - I certainly wouldn't have noticed the HDR treatment had it not been posted as an example of the technique.

It was subtle, natural - I really liked it.

Perhaps someone would remind us of the thread.

As an investment?

You can run, Jeorge, but you can't hide

Only sometimes?

Tut.

This is an occasion where I'm totally in agreement with Don.

Never got on with neck straps. Always used to narrowly miss clonking things with the camera as it swung about.

I had it over a shoulder sometimes, as McBrian does, and that was a bit better, but you still have to hold on to it, or hold it still by squeezing your arm against the strap.

I used to wrap the strap round my wrist - and now I use a wrist strap. Easy to attach and detach, impossible to drop, you don't get tired fingers holding it all the time - and you still get the extra awareness as Don says, of having it in your hand.

Careful, some folk don't have the choice.

Well, this is really only true if the sharpness of the image as resolved by the lens is greater than (or equal to) the resolution of the sensor.

Which is only true occasionally, of course, since lens imperfections, and indeed our own technique, often mean that we don't capture images as sharp as the sensor is capable of recording.

In such cases, sharpness as perceived by the eye (which is the only type that counts, at the end of the day) is often improved by resampling down to a smaller size.

Or standing a bit further away, of course.

That's interesting. If I do the same calc as for the K10D, it comes out as 8.

230,000 pixels on the LCD, which is 391 pix high.

Vertical sensor resolution = 3104.

3104/391 = 8

That would mean that the best view of the picture you've just taken is only available when you shoot in JPEG.

Please tell me this isn't so...

What, exactly, do you mean by this?

It's not a trivial question - if you want to print every pixel, you have to be sure that the printer is printing at a resolution that uses every pixel, on the paper size that you choose, as well as using an unresized image.

What is 'acceptable' is also dependent on viewing distance. If you're twice as far away, the same pixels can be twice as big and still look as sharp.

Then again, it depends on the lens you're using. If the resolution of the lens is good enough, then you can use every pixel and the picture will look sharp. If it's not as good, you might not be able to, and the image will look sharper smaller.

So '100%' doesn't really mean much unless you explain what you're really trying to achieve.

You refer to:

If my post earlier doesn't answer this question, then I don't understand the question. If my sums were right, you see every pixel at about 7X magnification.

Below this, the LCD isn't showing every pixel, it's doing clever software stuff to remove some of the pixels and make the rest look sensible.

Above this, the LCD has to invent pixels between the ones actually recorded, and again, it's doing clever software stuff to achieve this.