Ahh, okay, I think I can see what you mean. At this size looks like you've burnt in the sky to the left.

Think I still prefer the first one, mainly for the lighting.

Dan

...and from there, with a little surfing, you can find yourself here:

http://www.picstips.com/pentax/the-pdml-pentax-photo-book-camera-price-reduction...

...which contains gems such as "Camera implements transaction are life inclined superfluity cause this pool to mill Pentax appreciation to original valuation reductions en route for multifarious of Pentax’s best-selling camera models". That's what happens when you use Google to translate your blog into english.

Dan

I have the DA*300mm and it's beautiful. Sharp from wide open. Highly recommended.

I used to have the old Tamron AD2 300mm f/2.8, and while it was a great lens, and was very sharp once stopped down a bit (and if I got it in focus), it did suffer from aberations, purple fringing etc. The DA* does not.

Some pics here. Note the bird pics are handheld (something I wouldn't have been able to do with the old Tamron) and shown at 100% and cropped down, so pixel for pixel. Great detail, just a lovely lens.

Did I mention I like it?

Dan

There seems to be a halo around and to the left of the mountain-top in number 2.

Dan

Read that a couple of days ago on this very site...

https://www.pentaxuser.com/news/Pentax-instore-events-on-Saturday-168

Hopefully there might be a similar thing at other store in the future, can only be good news for Pentax.

Dan

Ebuyer tend to be a bit cheaper still, and highly recommended. (Network Drives here).

Dan

I would think not - but I'll just go and check.

Right, the 23.2Mb uncompressed Tiff became:

5.26Mb with LZW compression
4.28Mb with ZIP compression
2.79Mb with JPG compression (at quality level 12)

Might be lower than normal as it was a B+W image, but you get the idea. The jpeg compression (at highest quality setting) would be practically indistinguishable from the original, but I would guess the more you saved and resaved, the more the image would degrade.

LZW is apparently lossless, and I believe ZIP is too. They could cause problems though if your image editor can't open these formats though (if for instance you sent them to a friend/client). Much better, I would think, to save a jpeg in the first place and keep your Raw file.

Dan

I'm not a fan of colour HDR either - the colours always look far too unnatural to me. But as a black and white I think it works, and I think that's because it's a look that we're far more used to. With the wide dynamic range of B+W film, they were practically HDR images anyway.

Not too keen on the haloes around the sculpture either, but then that's one of the other things about HDR I don't like.

Good composition though.

Dan

I've always found PSDs to be smaller than Tiffs (just tried it, and the tiff was 22.3Mb, the PSD 19.2Mb). Certainly if you start using layers, the PSD will be smaller.

Opening and resaving a jpeg will degrade it. Simply moving it will not.

Dan

Because it is a 28-200mm lens, if they labeled it as anything else they'd be lying.

It doesn't matter if a lens is 'digital' or not, focal length is focal length. Just because the field of view is different on a DSLR compared to 35mm film SLR, does not change the focal length of the lens.

It's simply something you very quickly get used to.

And yes, that lens will be fine.

Dan