I would give them a clear enough picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each model in the range, so they could go home and order the one they wanted cheaper from elsewhere on the Internet.

I now realise that my original post may have come across as a kind of 'real photographers don't need light meters' kind of thing, which is emphatically not what I meant. It was more that it seems to me that already a few years back, light metering became sophisticated enough to put your exposure roughly in the middle of the range which a little exposure tweaking of the RAW file can sort out, given the dynamic range of modern sensors.

I know the title sounds like a bit of trolling, but I assure you it isn't! I think I must be misunderstanding something fundamental, because every time a new SLR comes out, they've further enhanced the sophistication of the metering, and I see the K3 is no exception. It now employs a mega-gazoodle of metering points or whatever.

But what does this buy you? The problem is capturing the entire dynamic range of light contained in the image, and that is equally problematic whatever metering you have. Ultimately you have to choose some compromise between blowing out the highlights and losing the details in the shadows. Personally, I tend to centre in the frame the area I'm most concerned about, press AE-L, recompose and shoot (with maybe a little Ev now and then), and that normally gets me close enough to a correct exposure, . Certainly close enough that, if I'm shooting RAW, given the exposure latitude of my DSLR a little nudge of the Exposure slider in Camera Raw is all that it takes to get the exposure spot on.

Is the main benefit of this ultra-sophisticated metering only really felt when shooting JPEGs, then? Or am I missing something big (which I kind of assume I am)?

Actually, your answer suggests another question I should be asking, specifically what camera settings work best for JPEG (sharpening, saturation, whatever). Although I got into the habit of late with my GX-10 of shooting JPEG+RAW, the reality is that most of the time good JPEGs would suffice for my purposes.

Thanks, John, very helpful. So you explicitly set the white balance in the camera rather than shooting RAW and changing it afterwards? That presupposes you're shooting RAW of course, and given that you say you use Premium JPEG, perhaps I have my answer...

Oh, and kudos for spelling the word 'loth' correctly. I think it's the first time I've seen anyone spell it correctly in years!

OK, so I have myself a new (or rather, second-hand) and shiny Samsung GX-20, to all intents and purposes the same as a K20D. I also have the kit lenses, the 18-55mm and 50-200mm. I have started playing with the camera and getting good results, and I know the only real way to get the best out of it is to get to know it like the back of my hand. But I would really appreciate a few little nuggets of wisdom from those who have had a K20D, to help me on my way, particularly in my main area of interest, landscapes. For example...

1. What have you found to be the steps you would normally take with Adobe Camera Raw and/or Photoshop? For example, how have you found the white balance to be, as shot? (I took some shots of a harbour in the later afternoon sun on Sunday and found them to be coolish 'as shot', and rather improved by setting the white balance to 'Daylight' in ACR). And have you found yourselves generally doing something with Vibrancy and/or Saturation, and what USM sharpening settings have you found to work best?

2. Any tips on exposure? Like, do you find usually upping the Ev slightly? Or the opposite, or neither?

3. I know the kit lens is a kit lens and I can't expect miracles from it, but it was generally well reviewed. Have you found that it has a 'sweet spot' where it is really good? Or alternatively, areas to avoid? E.g., it's great from f5.6 onwards or whatever, or great from 21mm to 50mm, something like that?

Thanks in advance.

I have to say that I'm astonished by the quality of this image, from the K3 sample image gallery:

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-3/ex/img/ex-pic01.jpg

Had I not known where it came from, I would have assumed that a FF sensor camera had been used, or even medium format.

Having just bought a second-hand GX-20, I'll not be shelling out on a K3, although it does look nice. I'm honest enough with myself to know that the current limitation on my photography is not my camera, but my photographic skills. I need to work on those, then maybe pick up a nice second-hand K3 in a couple of years' time..

I'm not surprised. It was clearly a slip-up that it should appear there at all the day before the official announcement. Heads will roll...

Certainly there's no magical quality which leaps out of the GX-10 shot (CCD sensor) for me, as against the GX-20 shot (CMOS sensor), even when viewing the RAW images. Maybe a hurriedly taken hand-held shot in dull light isn't enough to reveal anything, though?