Groins? I suspect you wanted a different word. One not associated with pain and privacy. Try groynes.

G

The great thing about RAW is that you can alter the exposure, and not find that some of the data is missing, as happens with JPEG.

G

Danny, do yourself a favour and think for one second.

Most people on here are keen to take GOOD photographs. The best they can, in fact. That's why they use expensive equipment.

It makes no sense at all to spend a large amount of money on kit, and then waste the investment by not spending a few seconds improving the final image.

And that's all it takes, to realise what is almost always a significant improvement. And ALWAYS a discernible improvement. Invariably. Every time.

I suggested you canvas other opinions because you had clearly made up your mind not to take my word for it.

It may be that you think post-processing involves huge expense and hundreds of hours of training. Well, I have no doubt that a master of the art, like Mattmatic, has spent a lot of time perfecting his technique. But you don't need to go that far. Just a few hours learning Silkypix (for instance) will make a huge difference to your images.

Good luck.

G

It may be obvious to you, Walkeja, but it's not obvious to the OP. If it had been obvious, he would not have asked the question.

So your answer is not very helpful.

WHY do you think the Pentax is the better lens to keep?

G

There is not a strong argument for keeping both. All else being equal, I should keep the Pentax. It will be consistent in terms of appearance, handling, and (most importantly) colour, with your other Pentax lenses.

However, the M is not a notably sharp lens, and if the Tamron is discernibly sharper, you might choose to keep it instead.

Time for some testing, methinks.

G

So it's the continuous focusing that you find a problem. I have to say I don't use it much - perhaps because it's not very good!

G

Then you must believe that it is possible to take pictures that are, at the very least, perfectly framed, perfectly exposed, and perfectly colour-balanced, and which will not benefit from even a little sharpening.

No only is it highly unlikely that anybody has ever taken such a picture, but furthermore I find that contrast and levels almost invariably benefit from some subtle tweaking, and I often also use one of the Silkypix colour profiles.

If you are happy with what you get straight out of the camera, then I would suggest that a visit to the opticians might be a good idea.

And a little reading on the subject would not come amiss either.

It's true that I don't know everything (though it was gratuitously offensive of you to point it out), but I suggest you canvass some other views before suggesting that I am wrong on this particular subject.

G

But how does it decide?

I don't pay a lot of attention to other brands, because it would be ridiculous for me to even contemplate switching, but my understanding (which may be wrong) is that Pentax AF is not less accurate than that of other brands, but can be less rapid.

No doubt you will tell me that my understanding is flawed.

G

Which raises the question: Why switch?

G

Agreed. But I hate missing anything "sublime", so I am hoping to be enlightened.

Mind you, I am still waiting to hear from Dannyboy on how you can avoid post-processing and still produce perfect images.

Methinks I will need to be very patient.

G