Perhaps an Olympus convert bought it!

Using any of the adapters with the Q is fiddly and there's no auto focus available with them either. The standard lens for the Q is 8.5mm. Any K mount lenses around that focal length are pretty bulky and try and go wider! TBH it's best to stick with Q lenses on the Q, they're light and designed for the camera unless you're into experimentation and can easily manually focus lenses on the rear screen (they're not TTL.)
I'll re-suggests the K-S1 as the lightest of the K mount cameras that does most of what a K3 can do. Nothing wrong with the Q either only K mount lenses with it are not wholly suitable.
Have you considered the MX-1 ? It's got the same size sensor as the Q, similar in use to the GR only with a reasonable quality moderate range zoom lens (as opposed to it being a compromised super zoom.)

Vic, the GR's only have a fixed lens! Your only solution to your losing weight would appear to be to cut down on those chocolate bars!
There are lighter Pentax DSLRs with the the K-S1 being the lightest AFAIK or find a K-01 which is all of 3 grams heavier.

There's nothing out of the ordinary with the photos as viewed here. Heavy cropping will not only show the pixels in a digital photo or grain in a negative but highlight deficiencies in the lens, usually referred to as aberrations, particularly close to the edges of the frame which is where the greenhouse is. Also it will highlight any camera shake.

If Peter's suggestion of providing a link to the whole photo is not easily achievable, another solution you could try is to produce a cropped image to show the issue but limit its maximum size to 1000 pixels which is the PU site limit before it automatically starts to reduce the resolution to 1000 pixels. It does this to provide a usable experience to users with a slow internet connection.

Basically if you wanted the greenhouse to fill the fame, choose a focal length accordingly when you take the photo to avoid magnifying part of the wider view image or accept the quality might suffer some pixelation and lens blurring. I'm sure you've heard of the advice to fill the frame!

You could always consider swapping to a larger format to give more scope in selective cropping before the deficiencies show themselves. K-1, 645... !

Do you have your K-3ii set to its maximum resolution and quality if using jpeg which may help unless you're using raw images.

Welcome to PU. It looks to me as though you have the main Pentax retailers. Is it possible to search by a specific retailer? As someone said at Talk, it might be quicker than using the retailers own site!

It doesn't seem to be 'listed'. There's nothing to stop one from applying to Historic England though. I arranged for an ancient Dovecot in Bridlington also set in a woodland to be listed and 'We got it done' (without sounding too political I hope!) I was surprised that wasn't listed already too.

You've tempted me!



There's a symmetrical contrast between the tree trunks and the foxgloves.

The room and/or water temperature either too hot or too cold can be a problem. Could that be an unconsidered variable? Also older flour can need aerating (sieve it or shake it.)

Nothing wrong with cheap Argos breadmakers if you know what you're doing.

Just check the exif data on the original photo. It should show the camera make and model and the camera settings used to take it (assuming it was a digital camera.) Somehow the exif has been stripped out on that copy.