I think those cameras are turning a lot of heads. Surely Pentax is very well placed to compete in that sector should they so wish. The compact primes would be a perfect partner (apart from non weather sealing), it would just need a couple of wider options for a very attractive lineup.

The 50-135 is a great lens and if it looks like rain then it's the one to fit on the camera. Otherwise a selection of compact primes is the perfect way to fill the bag. That's the trouble with lenses, they all have their uses.

I agree, very difficult to properly appreciate an image at that size.

The 'better' really isn't for general, middle ground photography. My K5 at ISO100 or 200 is very good indeed and any improvement really would be fairly marginal for a large additional outlay. The benefits I think manifest themselves in more specialist areas. High ISO is essential for certain situations/genres and it is there where the larger sensor comes into its own. Nothing is proved at 800pixels wide. For large prints then the larger sensor makes sense. On the margins of excellence then the additional resolution counts. It counts for those who can make use of it. We have seen numerous photographers pass through the ranks and then go full frame when they need that extra quality, be it because they have found a specialism or have reached a level of accolade where they need to push on. I hope Pentax does something more to keep them. I think they are ideally placed to do so.

Is LR5 much better than LR4? Both for CA removal and in general.

Thanks John. I will try that out of interest by converting RAWs to JPEGs in camera, which I presume will give the same result? Or RAW+. But I need my RAWs.

Good video. Good production values, it gets the message across and strikes a chord. I've found myself without a memory card on more than one occasion

Thanks, Adam on the other forum wrote an informative article on high iso performance across sensor sizes, which I presume is the image quality ceiling the K5 has hit.

I have heard it oft said that chromatic aberration is easily dealt with in post processing. I have also heard it stated that lenses designed for digital bodies are better equipped to minimise CA's than older lenses.

Chromatic aberrations annoy the hell out of me and I find neither of the above to apply to me.

I find certain lenses to be quite prone to CA. For example the DA12-24 and the DFA100 (at wide apertures). The FA43 often shows some too. Some of my older lenses I find to be very resistant to CA. In fact I found the DA35/2.4 to be more prone to aberrations than the K35/3.5. So I stuggle to see how modern lenses are better in this regard.

My techniques for dealing with CA are basically to convert to mono or to desaturate the purples or blues. The latter doesn't work when there are other purples or blues in the scene that I wish to remain. I have Lightroom 3 and the slider to supposedly deal with CA doesn't seem to work well, it either does little or changes one colour fringe to a different colour but the fringe remains.

So any advice on how to deal more effecticely with CA would be appreciated.

And the warranty.