Could I make a suggestion before I post the first of my 'five in a row' tomorrow? I think we should start a new thread for each set of 5 images, otherwise it will extremely difficult for people to focus on the latest set of 5 as the thread will become too long and too full of images.

What does everyone think?

Regarding your set of five David, I think they are all of high quality but for me number 4 stands head and shoulders above the rest. The graphical nature of this image suits your black and white processing perfectly and the whole composition and atmosphere of the shot is just great.

Regards
David

Thanks from me too Neil, I really enjoyed it, I think Oldmoor is my favourite reserve because the hides are so close to the birds. There were some other bonuses for me today too:

- I met Barrie Forbes - great to see you Barrie

- Barrie let me try out his Sigma 17-50, which is very good BTW

- When I got home I set about finding out what was wrong with the colours on my Sigma 17-70 and hey presto I've solved the problem! When I bought it there was a B+W Skylight filter attached and I had forgotten this was on there. When I took it off, the colour issue was solved! The lens is also sharper without it, so now I'm going to keep it.

Cheers
David

Here's one of my favourites with the 16-45, this was shot on my K-5 that I don't have any more:




The reason I've put this one on is because it was shot at F22, so it does show that the lens doesn't necessarily struggle with a small aperture, although the ones shot at wider apertures are much sharper than this due to the fact that you will get increasing diffraction at anything above F13 or so. It's one of very few that I've shot at F16 or above.

Regards
David

I'll be there too.

See you all there!

Cheers
David

I don't think the difference is huge, it is subtle, but for me it's subtly better!

Regards
David

On the K-5IIs I set it at 'Daylight' most often, with a tweak to the amber (one step), but with the K-3 the WB is so good/accurate that I leave it on the 'multi auto' setting.

It also depends on lenses you are using as some render warmer than others for a given WB setting.

Regards
David

I'm a little surprised Dave, as you know I have a K-5IIs and a K-3. The images from the K-3 consistently outstrip those from the K-5IIs for several reasons, which add up to generally better image quality.

The WB is better, the metering is better, the images are warmer and more natural looking, they have better detail, they are 'more 3D' if that makes sense and I don't find any issues with noise or with recovering shadow details or dealing with high dynamic range images.

When I use the cameras side by side on the same shoot, I always get better shots and more keepers with the K-3. The IQ is part of it, but also I find the AF on the K-3 is more consistently accurate, which is a massive benefit, particularly with longer lenses.

I wonder if I have a particularly good copy of the K-3?

Regards
David

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm looking for a single lens and the focal range on the 20-40 is not enough, so a 17-50 or 16-50 is the minimum I can live with. I also have a 12-24, so I don't need anything at the ultra wide end.

Regards
David

For wide angle landscapes try F6.3 or F7.1. I used to own this lens and used it extensively for landscape work; the apertures I mention above were the ones that produced the best results for me. Also, when using a wide aperture the depth of field is greatly increased so you don't need F20 or F22.

Regards
David

Thanks for all the replies guys, it is appreciated. Regarding the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM OS, I already own this lens and am wanting to replace it with a 17-70 constant F2.8. The primary reason for wanting to replace it is because I can't get on with the colour rendering on it, as it is so different to the way my other lenses render colours, particularly on greens. Because I do a fair amount of landscape work this is important to me.

Barrie Forbes has kindly offered to send me a few RAW files for images taken with his Sigma 17-50 so that I can have a look at thee I've been told that the 17-50 has much better colour rendering than the 17-70 does. Failing that, I might buy another DA 17-70, but I really want the constant F2.8 and the DA*16-50 is too expensive.

Regards
David