I've e-mailed the RAW images to Smeggy; I'm happy for Smeggy to upload them wherever he likes. If anyone else wants me to e-mail them, please let me know.

Regards
David

I'd love to go to Snowdonia, depending on date.

Regards
David

I've been trying to stay out of this recently as it's all got a bit anal and technical, but what I can say is that all camera settings that could possibly affect IQ were identical between the K-5 and the K-5IIs. When I say all, I mean all. No differences at all.

That doesn't mean that the two cameras treated the shot the same - they meter differently and the IIs exposes shots much more than the K-5 does. I don't know why, but it does.

Regards
David

Hi Alistair, I have just bought a Siggy 150-500 (non OS) from another forum member. The lens had barely been used, so qualifies as almost new, but is not the latest version. I don't think the 'OS' vs 'non OS' would necessarily make any difference with focussing speed (correct me if I'm wrong on this point), but I don't find the Siggy slow. I've used it on my K-x, K-5 and K-5IIs, great results on all three, but I must say that the IIs is the most reliable focusser of the three.

I was using it yesterday in poor light, ISO 1250 and Shutter Speeds of 1/80 and it was locking focus quickly no problem at between 440 and 500mm. On the rare occasions it didn't, I used the quick shift manual override, which I find very easy and smooth BTW. I don't miss the OS either, almost all the shots were sharp.

I do question whether you would see any speed improvement with the DA*300 and whether you would be better looking at a later camera body like the K-5 MkII or IIs? The autofocus on these bodies is streets ahead of the K-x and copes brilliantly in low light conditions, so is probably less affected by the narrower aperture than the K-x would be.

Regards
David

No1 also.

Regards
David

I can second the opinion on the SMC K135mm F2.5; I have this lens and it produces beautiful images, from wide open. It does suffer from CA's though.

Regards
David

[quote:3496ace15f="johnriley"]Is there a point in ignoring the advice of the manufacturer and not using the product they make for the job?[quote]

No, not per se John, but then again the manufacturer will always recommend their own kit, or possibly kit they have a financial interest in. I'm not suggesting this falls into that category, but if you draw parallels with cars (another highly complicated bit of kit that is expensive to repair), the manufacturers will always insist you should use 'genuine parts' that are ridiculously expensive. Fact is, you can buy parts that are often made in the same factory, to the same standards, for a fraction of the cost!

All I'm saying is that from experience the items I use to clean my sensor do the job just fine and they cost next to nothing.

Regards
David

I think we should end this topic now!! My problem is that when someone responds to the post I am compelled to write something else! Stop it please so I won't be tempted!

Best wishes
David

Hi Nigel, I did state in the post (several times) the method of processing. They were converted to jpeg in Adobe Camera Raw with only a levels adjustment, nothing else whatsoever. I think this would qualify as a minimal amount of processing and would certainly not introduce a multitude of automatic adjustments. The crucial point is that they were all processed in exactly the same way.

Regards
David

I don't think there is much of a risk in using Pec Pads on a sensor. They are non-abrasive and will not damage it. There is a risk using anything that applies an amount of pressure to the sensor if there is dust on there that could scratch it. The companies that make these types of cleaning products have to be careful not to put approvals on certain products as it could backfire on them (it's easy for someone to make a mistake whilst cleaning the sensor and then blame it on the cleaning products).

Like most things in life, cleaning your sensor requires mostly common sense; there is no mystery or dark art about it.

Regards
David