Well, I am very skeptical about a reviewer that only tests a lens at max aperture (with maximum falloff and CA) and minimum aperture (with diffraction reducing resolution). These are the only apertures I never use, and F22 on a wide angle lens is entirely pointless because DOF is huge anyway.

Its really not a rigorous review and I would not take its results all that seriously except to say its probably better than the Sigma. However its good value given that the price Pentax wants for the 12-24 is just grand comedy.

50 F1.4 is very soft wide open with low contrast. Its far more noticeable on a camera like the K20 at 100% (14M) than the K100 (6M).

Not unusual for lenses in this class. See here....

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/126-pentax-smc-fa-50mm-f14-review--lab-test-repor...

The 55-300 is a nice lens but not a major step up in IQ or speed terms (and its performance tails off a bit beyond 240mm). If you want a major improvement then you need to look at the 60-250 F4 which is a stunning lens.

But the best possible exposure may also be the one that allows the most lattitude in post processing (low contrast, underexposed to protect highlights, no sharpening) rather than the one that looks best in camera (correct mid-tone exposure, high contrast).

I tend to shoot with the aim to maximise the potential of the end result, which is slightly different from getting it perfect in the camera. I shoot everything in RAW and process accordingly.

Its true you still have to start with something thats properly composed, in focus and has a WB close to reality, but you may well make different choices of exposure.

Aha, but there you have it in a nutshell. The ONLY thing that really matters at the end of the day is composition and timing. The camera is just a tool, but learning the principles or exposure is not rocket science. The hard bit is making good images.

Digital is great. It demystifies and democratises photography. An aesthetically talented kid can now make great images naturally without the hardware getting in the way.

However a whole new generation of aesthetically challenged drones Flickr and Twitter us to death with a tide of banal mediocrity which just happens to be properly exposed and in focus, but who cares?

Thing is, no amount of technology can...

Give you the ability to previsualise the shot
Give you a sense of aesthetics
Give you empathy for your subject
Teach you when to shoot and when to watch
Give you the instinct for narrative that makes every truly great shot
etc..

This can all be learned of course, but its a much bigger deal than learning what F stop to use. Its the difference between being a master builder and a master architect. But very very few bother. Few even understand the problem.

Of course its much easier to talk about gear and F stops on camera forums and blame the gear when our shots dont look like Joe Cornish's.

3 lenses over 18 months no issues.

I dont know about that. I look around photo exhibitions, like the Vanity Fair exhibition in the NPL a while back, and I see extraordinary quality print work - some of the larger ones were exceptional even though they started as slide or neg. I have also looked at a lot of Charlie Waite's work close up and considering he still uses 6X6 slide film, the prints are wonderful.

I dont think the skills have gone, I think they are morphing into digitized scanning and photo-printing skills instead of direct analogue printing skills. Its not the same but the flexibility offered and potential output quality is if anything even greater.

My own eyesight tells me that current colour reproduction (generally digitised then printed) is WAY better than anything I saw 20 years ago.

B&W, possibly not however. I think there is still a technology issue with greyscale. Somehow digital prints still look lifeless.

As for the OP question, the quality of my output is miles ahead of where I was 10 years ago. I can print A3+ at home. Sure I took the trouble to learn photoshop, colour management etc.

Are the original shots better? Yes, because I can now learn from my mistakes and see where I went wrong. I actually take far LESS shots now that I used to because I know when I nailed it.

Digital gave me back control of the whole process - something I lost when I lost access to a darkroom and only regained when I got my first neg scanner in '98.

Sorry to hear that, having lost 2 of my best friend over the years it leaves a huge hole in your life.

But nothing, and I mean nothing, can make you feel more full of springs than a new pup.

Plus ca change? I think middle aged men have had the exact same conversation throughout history. We could be sitting in the forum in the middle of Ancient Rome complaining about the vigiles (Roman police) and the rise in violent crime (which was remarkable rare in the nicer parts of the city).

I think a lot of white middle class photographers are now experiencing first hand what it was like to be black or Irish or live in a working class estate throughout most of the '60s, '70s and '80s. We didnt know how bad it was because nobody cared and it was rarely reported but knife crime was commonplace.

I dont think much has changed actually, only who is affected and how it is reported. Its a bit like swine flu.

Personally I have had many friendly conversations with Met officers while out with a camera, but on the other hand have had many MANY run ins with officious PCSOs, security guards, a traffic warden (who I photographed ticketing a car when a woman was actually buying a ticket) and an irate office manager (who told me I couldn't photograph her office because it was grade 2 listed - I kid you not).

By comparison the police are for the most part quite tolerant and (considering how much crap they have to put up with from complete morons) surprisingly polite. I am reliably informed (by a friend who is also an officer) that arresting someone does involve a huge amount of paperwork and is generally avoided if there is a good chance that its a waste of time, or if it doesnt contribute to the home office's flavour of the month crime prevention statistic.

Bad apples? Of course. Always were. I guess we have all forgotten the Met's reputation during the miners strike, or the corruption trials in the late '70s, or the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, or the Birmingham 6, or the SPG (remember the Sgt Savage sketch?). Law enforcement is a reflection of the times and has always relied on a few "willing enforcers" who read the wrong comics as kids, hence it attracts the overzealous just as it attracts the public spirited and brave. If it were entirely full of "nice chaps" it would also (sadly) be pretty useless when dealing with hardened gangs and terrorism.

I just wish they wouldn't be quite so obvious about covering things up, but then we have politicians who are quite good at that too.

Well clearly you know a lot because you spend £500 on diffusers and see fit to disparage, despise and belittle anyone you disagree with. It's a shame therefore that you are not willing to share that knowledge because it must be something really special.

Most people I come across who are any good have developed several unique techniques so I never assume I can't learn from someone whose work I have not come across before, however many books I read, courses I complete, or years I practice.

However I prefer to learn from people with a more friendly and outgoing personality, so perhaps its not such a bad thing after all.

Bit defensive are we? If you wrote a blog about it perhaps we'd all learn something?