Using a 64 bit version of Windows XP will probably help a bit in that it runs process faster and can address however much RAM you add to your system. 32 bit versions are limited in the RAM they can make use of. I used to use a dual processor Xeon system with 1GB RAM and 32 bit XP Pro. It was hopeless for large 16 bit images (e.g. 30 inches to 70 inches). Photomerges could take forty min or more, and large canvasses would need an overnight run to complete Photomerge. I was forever running out of RAM even when I nudged up the allocation for Photoshop. Working with images was slow, staccato, and painful - especially with large multi-layered files. Currently I am using an i7 processor PC with 64 bit Windows 7 and 6GB RAM. Photoshop absolutely flies on it. Runs that would have taken all night previously complete now in 15-20 min. Photomerges of 14.6 MP image (on average 15 images at once) completes in 2-3 min. Photoshop (the 64 bit version) launches in 4 seconds. Unfortunately, upgrading to a new system is the thing that will really make a big difference to you.

Or to put it another way - is Pentax UK the most dozy and lifeless Pentax office in the world? As someone else wrote once in a similar context, if silence is a mask for unease then (Pentax UK) must be in a state of panic.

A couple of months ago I contacted their press and PR representatives asking a simple question about who to send some information to. Result - silence.

I contacted Pentax UK directly asking the same question. Result - silence.

I see now, days after the K20D and K200D announcements, that Pentax UK persists in the belief that the most recent Pentax DSLR announced is the Grand Prix edition of the K10D. I see they also think that the best award they have received of late (on their DSLR page) is Novice Camera of the year 2007.

I wonder how Hoya will react when they discover that having their products marketed and supported in the UK is like being represented by a petrified forest.

If anyone from Pentax UK management has roused themselves from their slumbers for long enough to browse this forum, please read and inwardly digest this message: If you want to start enhancing your market share, do wake up and try a bit harder.

Good professional photographers have an attention to detail that even the most gifted amateur is unlikely to match simply because of the necessity to pay attention to detail day in and day out (note I am careful to write "good professional photographers" as there are plenty of unimpressive pros). For this reason a good professional will always have an edge. I learned this first by studying the portrait work of Paul Kaye Studio in London.

It isn't that a gifted amateur lacks the ability of a pro - it is simply that amateurs do not have the time to spend developing the reflexes and eye for detail that good professionals must have - especially when dealing with clients who aren't interested in excuses. To develop a facility for anything you have to do it often, and there is nothing like daily commercial pressure to help develop the discipline you need to see things quickly that others may miss. This is true in any pursuit - sports for example.

I think the premise of amateurs vs pros is a little misleading sometimes because any good pro needs an amateur's heart. The problem some pros have is that photography has become just a job. The problem with some amateurs is that they lack the edge and creative reflexes of the best pros simply due to lack of daily exercise.

I should just add that studio based photographers have the most difficult job in my view because they are responsible for everything in the photograph (I can write this with a clear conscience as I am not studio based). If something is a fraction off in photo-journalism or any other field it can be excusable due to factors outside of the photographer's control. In the studio there are no excuses and nowhere to hide. Anyone who can handle studio work well has my respect.

More for the future than now as you are working in Tiff and Jpeg: if you shoot in RAW then Adobe Camera Raw gives some options for reducing chromic aberration when you open the file. On the Lens tab you will find a slider to correct red/cyan fringe and/or blue/yellow fringe.

It seems to me that if this problem is not happening with pentax lenses then the fault lies with Sigma. It seems ever so slightly cheeky for a lens manufacturer to be suggesting (reading between the lines as it were) that Pentax cameras don't take their needs into account.

I think this is another one of those cases of "well they would say that, wouldn't they."

Pete,

Its a fair point to make and not at all off track to raise it as a query.

I still want the option of making use of all that data if the need arises. We had the same option with 35mm film for example in that it could be enlarged to something bigger than A3. Would you have preferred to use 110 film over 35mm if you didn't think you were going to print larger than A4? It isn't just resolution the larger format of film (or additional megapixels) gives, but superior gradation of tone and better grain.

I know some reviewers have dismissed the K10D's 22 bit image processing as a gimmick in that the final image produced is going to be 12 bit at best (RAW) or 8 bit (jpeg). They are missing the point. A bigger sample will still give a more accurate average. If the image is going to be averaged down to 12 or 8 bit I would prefer it to be averaged down from 22 bit. The potential for that data to be useful is worth having because you never know when you are going to need it. If the ability to put photos up on a web page were the main criteria I would have saved myself a lot of money and used a 4MP zoom compact. The K10D will give me web page material, but much more when I need it.

How reviewers such as DP Review arrive at their conclusions is less clear. From what I have been able to gather they are no more free of commercial interest than the magazines Ben has mentioned who demand a manufacturer takes out advertising space before getting a feature. DP Review appears to have based its review of the K10D's image quality on jpegs at default settings without taking the time to learn how to use the camera properly. Curiously, the review commented that the K10D's RAW quality was as good or better than the Nikon D80's, but still chose to rate its image quality below all others in its class (awarding it a grudging "just" highly recommended). A different reviwer caught on to the fact that Pentax have given photgraphers more control over the jpeg quality by not over sharpening it. By the photographer taking the trouble to learn how to use the camera (something technicians like to refer to as an RTFM solution) its jpegs can be brightened and sharpened to taste.

I am uneasy with the notion of basing my opinion of image quality on how it looks on a 72 or 96 ppi monitor which may or may not have been calibrated correctly and may or may not be working properly. Ben has commented that Canon images look better on a monitor, but the K10D's look better in print. Each of us will have their own preferences, but for me the true measure of how good an image is will remain how well it prints. Luckily the world is big enough to accommodate the preferences of people who prefer it the other way around and I am not about to tell them they are wrong. Photography is still an art and any art is going to be subject to personal interpretation and preferences. Suits me.

That is exactly my concern. Asset-strippers don't care what damage they do.

I hope this goes some way towards helping Pentax to knock the Hoya merger on the head. Although I've nothing but instinct to go on I am always uneasy about what happens to the junior partner in a merger. If anyone has solid information to the contrary I'm happy to stand corrected. For now I'd rather see Pentax remain the masters of their own fate.

This is a trivial observation, and it may not have any relevance for anyone outside of London. That said, it illustrates what a difference a vendor's attitude makes.

I went off in search of a Rocket blower today as my K10D has some dust on the sensor that its regular shake-on-start won't dislodge. I checked the Jessops website to find out if they carry a version of this product (they do). While browsing online I couldn't help noting the blizzard of heavily promoted non-Pentax DSLRs available immediately. If, however, you want a K10D from Jessops it is a different story - they expect you to wait 28 days. UK buyers could get one in a fraction of the time from the Far East or North America.

I went along to Jessops to get the blower and, as they did not have one in stock, they suggested helpfully that I check just across the road at a rival photographic vendor called Jacobs. Not only did Jacobs have plenty of Rocket blowers, but they also had a K10D in the window, more in stock, and a pile of K10D brochures in a prominent place on the sales counter.

No confusion over which is the sunny side of the street then.

I don't think this attitude will change as long as people remain emotional creatures. A lot of people have a powerful emotional need for approval, and there are times when they solve this by hanging a badge around their necks (sometimes the badge begins with a C or an N).

A business writer called Phillip Hesketh has written and lectured extensively about the psychology of persuasion and concluded that we buy emotionally and then justify logically afterwards. Anyone who has paid more than £20 for a watch (according to Phillip) knows all about this. A £20 watch will tell the time perfectly well. Something costing ten or a hundred times as much won't tell the time any better, so there must be something about it that satisfies an emotional need if you are willing to pay so much more. If you buy a car costing five grand you get five grand's worth of car. If you pay fifty grand for another one is it ten times as good or is it just better? What makes it worth ten times as much to a buyer?

I believe badges are more to do with approval and/or acceptance than practical benefits. We won't navigate through this minefield using logic. Unfortunately that is why the Canon vs Nikon polls will drone on and on and on. For real artists in any field their art is their emotional need and they spend little or no time fretting about badges or pixel-peeping (which I think ties in with Ben's comment about perfecting your art instead of banging on about technical features). For the rest, lacking art they substitute basking in refected glory. Photographers who have the worst emotional cravings wear a camera brand strap with the word "Professional" on it - the ultimate accolade. It doesn't make the pictures any better, but my word it makes them feel better.