The second one is definitely funnier, I have to admit the first one did nothing for me. Maybe I am getting too old!

Regards
David

Get well soon Cliff, I didn't know you had had a heart attack until I read this thread; I hope you are on the road to recovery and will be back out shooting some images soon.

Regards
David

Hi Mac, I have a K-x and I love it! It takes great images and is really good in low light too. BUT, I also have a K-5 and I love that one more!

It's just better at everything. I won't be selling the K-x though, it gets used regularly as I always take both cameras when I go out on a shoot. I've also just sold a K-m, which I also loved, but one of them had to go.

Regards
David

My choice was mainly for two reasons; I had used Pentax and Pentax mount cameras in the film era and I had a few lenses from 20 years ago, so I could use these on the Pentax DSLR's. Secondly, and probably more importantly, I thought that the build quality for the money offered by Pentax was unequalled by the other manufacturers and this was the deciding factor when I bought a K-x. I also quite like being in a minority among DSLR owners!

Regards
David

Judging by the title of the thread, I would imagine that the images were posted to show the quality of images the camera can produce, otherwise it may just have been called 'Pictures at Chester Zoo' or something similar.

That's why I have made observations about them in relation to the K-5IIs, I think this was a fairly logical reaction to the thread?

Regards
David

The Rhinoceros one is the only one that I think shows the true potential of the K-5IIs, the level of detail in the shadows is lovely. I don't think the others have enough to see any difference between these shots and what could have been achieved with a normal K-5.

Regards
David

Hi Suzanne, I thought you were asking for opinions on the focus accuracy, based on the content of this thread?

Regards
David

The images you've posted are not the best for assessing focus accuracy. In the third one it's not clear what you are trying to focus on and in the fourth one almost everything is in focus as it's a wide-ish angle shot with subjects at a distance and it would be quite difficult to get that one out of focus!

The first two are better, but again, without knowing the exact point you were focussing on (I assume it was the dog's eye) it's difficult to assess, although these look OK from a focus point of view.

You would be better taking some shots on a tripod of static subjects that provide an image with depth (e.g. a ruler scale, a set of boxes with writing on them stacked at different distances from the camera or an item with some depth to it and a clear indication of where the point of focus is intended to be).

Regards
David

Hi Nigel, I do disagree with you on this one (although I note you did say you were 'playing Devil's Advocate'). After having spent a considerable time with only a polarising filter, I have invested in some decent ND Grads and a 10 stop filter. Regarding the ND Grads in particular, my experience is that they are virtually a necessity if you want to take good landscape shots. I don't think they are fiddly to use if you go for one of the square systems, you just fix the filter holder before you set out on your shoot and it's easy to adust the filter in the holder as required.

I wouldn't leave home without mine now. Yes, you can achieve similar (although not the same) results in PP, but I like to get the shots right in camera and not spend much time processing them if I can help it. Also, the ND Grads are most helpful in avoiding the one issue that is most difficult to eradicate in PP, i.e. blown out skies.

Regards
David

PS: Dr. Orloff's point about using welding glass as a cheap 10 stopper is a good one. I've had some really great images from shots with welding glass, the only issue is I can't fully correct the colour cast, so these have all ended up being mono conversions. With the Hitech 10 stopper, correcting the cast is easy.

That first shot is an absolute peach of an image, brilliantly composed. I like the second one too, but the first is exceptional.

Regards
David