I seem to remember reading someone before claiming that SR actually made things worse when panning but I can't remember where it was (or even if it was on this forum). I've not done any scientific testing myself and I don't have many panned shots in my portfolio but here's one with SR on:




It probably displays a similar amount of softness around the edges at 100% as your example does, but that could well be just down to my (quite poor) panning skills.

The best way for you to find out is to take some shots with SR on and some with it off and see if there's a pattern that emerges - it'll be interesting to know what conclusions you come to.

Having said that, it doesn't mean you can't be the one to start the trend...

Pentax cameras aren't generally famed for the speed of their operation (although they're not exactly slouches they do lag behind some of the Canons and Nikons - even Sonys and Olympus's - of this world when it comes to things like focussing speed and frame rate), however, they do tend to trump most of the opposition when it comes down to ultimate image quality.

This doesn't mean there aren't people out there taking sports and action shots with Pentax kit (there are and they seem to be doing very well from what I've seen) but Pentax land does mainly seem to pull in folks who are more at home with landscapes, macros, still-lifes, studio work, etc and who are more concerned with getting the highest quality results.

There are plenty of forums and resources on the 'net that are non-brand specific and which deal with different fields of photography. Perhaps you'd find one of them more useful as general techniques don't really vary between the manufacturers and your kit is just as capable as anybody elses (as the photos you yourself have posted previously amply demonstrate ).

You'll always be welcome back here if you have technical queries regarding your equipment, but I think you'll have a long wait before you see a rash of action shots around these parts...

Thanks for that

All very good, especially at the larger resolutions on Flickr. The eye detail on the second fly picture is especially impressive but overall the yellow flower (not sure of the name - something from the daisy family I guess?) is my pick of the four - I really like the "sunburst" effect and the glorious colour.

The focus on the first one is spot on and I like the little blue water spider, very jewel-like. I notice the Tamron's not in your sig any more - has it gone to pastures new now the Sigma's arrived?

It sounds like there's a connection problem between the Tamron and the body - try cleaning the electrical contacts on the bayonet and see if that improves things.

You'll find that film (slide and print) generally has a larger dynamic range than any digital sensor currently on the market, however, digital technology is still comparatively new so don't be suprised if this situation is reversed in the near future. We may not be there yet, but I bet there's a scientist somewhere working on it as I speak...

When you process RAW files on the computer you can usually extract more detail from shadow (black) areas, however, the highlight (white) areas are lost for good unfortunately.

As was said above, if you're shooting JPEGs for use "straight-from-the-camera" then you may wish to lift the exposure levels and sacrifice the extreme highlights in favour of a better balanced overall picture. This is the way most point-and-shoot digital cameras work as they (mostly) don't have a RAW facility and expect the user to be less critical of their pictures. I'm sure with practice you'll find a way of working that suits you, but I think it's safe to say that your camera is working as it is intended to.

I didn't type quick enough!