One of the frustrating things about my K10 has been its performance in low light, at high ISO. While it has been demonstrated on PU that a K10 can take less noisy images when properly exposed, I perhaps haven't been as skilled or as fortunate.

I was asked to shoot the rehearsal of some orchestra members two weeks ago. It was indoors (former convent, high ceilings etc), and not well lit at all. Lots of black music stands, clothing and seating, lots of shadows, and one K10 struggling in low light at ISO 800. Flash was not an option, neither was a tripod. Result - lots of noisy, blurry pictures, and one less than happy snapper.

Rather than become embarassed again, the available option seemed to be a second / back-up body with good performance in low light and at high ISO. That led to a hard look at the K-x. The K7 is out of reach.

Having now taken a whole 41 images with the 16-45 on the K-x, I am impressed. I deliberately set out to trip it up, with the way poor light and shadows tend to show up the K10. In low light / high ISO situations, it is a stark contrast. Outdoors, shadow detail is resolved beautifully. 1600 indoors handheld with no flash gives me sharp, useable images at f5.6. The faster glass is yet to be tried, and it can only get better. 3200 and beyond is something I haven't got my head around yet.

While the Kx is a cut-down camera in terms of its body and external controls (only one e-dial and far fewer buttons), that doesn't take away from the images its sensor produces. To me these are acceptable compromises for the sake of clean, sharp images (and its price was nearly down to a half of the street price of a K7 body).

Having got this far, some comparison shots may be in order on the weekend, all things being =.
Happy to post some if there's any interest.

I used three matchboxes sitting on brick paving - worked a treat! The grid was only for my notes, so I knew which image used which setting - apologies if that was not clear...

Thanks PG - that is good news indeed (and for making that connection for me between the respective series).

In the UK, you're fortunate in that you still have an extensive steam collection by the looks, notwithstanding the many that were scrapped.

Tim,

To my eyes there is a distinct difference in sharpness between the first and second shots, so it may not all be due to the resizing that happens on upload?

I agree with Peter - that first image gets me in too.

Good photography and artistry in the series in my opinion.

Cliff,

What a lovely series, but the last image is a sad one. I suppose at least some of those were retained and restored, as you say.

TI - Were those two times on the same day?

David,

If you already have the 'hack', then the instructions at the link Barrie provided are spot on - that's how it worked for me. You only need to do that once, and the rest of it is in your K10, using the standard English language menu.

Once installed, I drew up a quick grid on paper for each lens, running from -120 um through zero to +120 um, and recorded the image number next to each setting (using a tripod, AF-S, Av & max aperture, 2 second shutter delay, SR OFF).

Once you've got your 25-odd shots per lens off, you can view them on the PC using the grid you contructed on paper - you'll see the focus differences soon enough.

Note that this only affects AF, not manual focus - the latter is the domain of the shims that Lance B has comprehensively described elsewhere on PU

Good luck.