That's what I thought. It doesn't seem to be what all Pro dealers think, nor Johnsons. I'm trying to clarify it - not easy.

Was your question specifically in relation to a DSLR? I am told by a Pro Centre that they think that only DSLRs are covered by this.

I was under the impression that Pentax products purchased from an accredited Pentax Pro Centre have a two year warranty.

I seem to recall that the Pentax (pre-Ricoh) website once stated that the Pro Centre warranty was two years, but I'm not sure if my mind is playing tricks on me.

Does anyone know if the two year warranty applies to all Pro Centres and if it is documented anywhere? I am having some bother trying to clarify this with a retailer.

I'm thinking that panoramic ratios to varying degrees might suit all these shots except for 3.

Nobody has mentioned it because you didn't post the original version on ephotozine, just the posterised version where the extreme processing rather disguises the out of focus nature of the shot. Some will like that look and probably only those who do will comment. Personally I think a mobile phone and instagram processing would produce a more pleasing, more effortless looking result than the above processing which I think is just trying too hard.

I had to Google Julia Margaret Cameron, I would put forward that there is a world of difference between am image from the 1800's which is out of focus, but with good reason and an image which looks like a modern, digital image that is just largely out of focus for no particular reason. I just don't think the styles are remotely comparable. If you wanted the first image to have this look then some more movement might have been in order, certainly what looks completely incongruous is the sharp focus on the hair. I think you might have achieved a more convincing result with the Q and pinhole lens. Even better an 1800s camera.

I don't think technical excellence is that important, but I think this image is a poor facsimilie of a good idea.

I agree with that sentiment entirely. I have many snapshots of the kids where technical perfection is the last of my concerns. I wouldn't show them here as noone would find them at at all interesting. The intention behind the photo, its intended audience and its intended place of display are as important as the image itself.

Here I am in the middle of nowhere, back of beyond France Profonde with better internet speeds than the developed world.

A really interesting, varied and creative set. I particularly like the light in 5, the very well spotted composition of the shutters and the red light district image, very clever that one.

There is of course a place for an out of focus family album snapshot. In fact kind of approach can lead to spontaneity, capture character well and lead to interesting, happy accidents. But I don't see why any feedback is required for that kind of shotm they are for those that know the subject.

K5 and DA*300, uncropped:




100% Crop:




Also worth considering:

The new 1.4 converter is very well reviewed and partners well with the lens.


I read that the K3 and DA300 blows away the K5 and DA300 for resolution and cropability. I am happy with the above resolution and cropability so I would be very interested to see K3 results that do blow that away, bodes well for when I upgrade.

15mm is often too wide. I would definitely go for an option, ideally a couple of options, between 15 and 55mm. It's a big gap where many landscape shots would sit. Stitching for wider is a better option than cropping for closer.