The LX is the best (but most by now will require repair for the sticky mirror problem I suspect). The MX, K1000 & ME Super are widely available and if you have 'A' lenses you might want to try the Super-A (although it's manual mode isn't as intuitive as the others).

My preference though is the K1000 (my LX needs a repair), a little bit bigger than the MX and it feels more robust (but feels clunkier - which I quite like).

As I said it's a guess, but it seems strange that it seems so important whilst only really being an issue to a few specific applications.

More pixels in the same frame size should give much better (smoother) transitions between tones (there are 50% more pixels to represent the same tonal transition across the same area of the frame). It's not a number but a look and is often more obvious than simply an increase in resolution (sharpness).

As a film shooter, I'm quite surprised that the only property of the K-3 v K-5 debate anybody's seems interested in in this thread is very high ISO noise performance. I guess it's an easy (read 'technical') comparison to make, using in many cases somebody else's photos downloaded off the web, in an area that's predictably going to challenge the K-3 sensor.

Has nobody checked whether the higher resolution allows for smoother tonal graduations across a pastel coloured sky or smoother (sorry 'buttery'!) bokeh in an OOF background?

Are we all running round shooting ISO 1600 by default?

These two shots have the Stuka wingtips in very similar places (using the AF markings in the finder for reference). Both taken with my K-5 & FA20-35/4, the first at 20mm, the second at 35mm, changing the camera to Stuka distance accordingly. They are both straight out of the camera and re-sized to 800px wide (apologies for the rough and ready test shots):

1) 20mm:


Perspective Test 20mm by John Halliwell, on Flickr

2) 35mm:


Perspective Test 35mm by John Halliwell, on Flickr

EDIT: An attempt to shoot at 20mm from the same distance as 35mm and then crop. Note the angle of view is slightly higher.
3) 20mm cropped:


Perspective Test 20mm cropped by John Halliwell, on Flickr

John.

I'm not quite sure what is being discussed here. If you have a photographer, foreground subject and background then:

1) Nothing moves but the photographer changes lenses and enlarges the 'cropped' wider shot to compensate. The apparent DoF may change due to the larger enlargement, the perspective remains the same (the relative distances are the same). Using the longer lens has the same effect as enlarging the photo more (the lens projects an enlarged image on the sensor).

2) The photographer shoots the wider shot closer to the subject than the longer shot, the background remains in the same place. The DoF may change due to the different subject distance. The perspective changes because the photographer to subject distance has changed relative to the subject to background distance.

There is much more to (2) than that, the wider/closer shot includes a lot more foreground in front of the subject as the change in perspective is progressively exaggerated the closer things are to the camera. At very short subject distances, depending on the viewing angle, different parts of the subject (at different distances) can be distorted relative to each other for the same reason.

John.

Thanks for all the replies, links and photos. I'm now convinced I'm after the 45mm - just have to find one at a suitable price...

John.

Maybe an additional section of the forum could be created for commenting on work, something separate from 'Your photos' so you could specifically indicate you'd like comments. Any photo (not author) in that section would then be fair game...

As has been mentioned, a bit more of a narrative as to what you trying to achieve, what problems you had and any useful techniques used (either during capture or PP) would help set the scene.

John.

It's not difficult to get average results, beyond that takes a lot of effort/experience/gift etc...

I can't point you in the direction of a website, I learned from several books on 35mm photography (probably by Michael Langford), but the basics are fairly easy (it gets more complicated but this is enough to get started):

Your film speed (ISO) is fixed by the film you load and determines the amount of light you need for a 'correct' exposure. The ambient light level determines your shutter speed/aperture combination required to achieve this. Longer shutter speeds (lower numbers) let in more light and vice versa. Wider apertures (lower numbers) also let in more light and vice versa. For a given light level and ISO, a wider aperture means a shorter shutter speed and vice versa. For each 'step' in shutter speed (called a stop) there is a corresponding step in aperture (in the other direction). There is usually some overlap in the shutter speed/aperture combination to allow flexible choice in the following:

Shorter shutter speeds freeze movement, longer ones blur it. Wider apertures produce less (shallower) depth of field, smaller apertures produce more (deeper) depth of field. Shorter focal lengths create more DoF for a given aperture, longer ones create shallower DoF for the same aperture.

When you get the LX put it into manual mode (shutter speed dial not in 'automatic'). As you change shutter speed or aperture, you should see the red LED in the finder move up or down corresponding to the recommended speed for the given ISO, ambient light level and aperture. When the indicator of your set speed lines up with the LED, that means you're set at the recommended exposure. Take note how this works (easier to see for yourself than trying to explain it) pointing at different light levels.

Slide (transparency/E6) film shows up errors immediately (print film is 'corrected' in the printing process) and noting your settings when shooting will help you work out what (if anything) is going wrong.

Hope this helps, there must be useful stuff on the web too.

John.

IIRC the Spotmatic F metering is always 'on' when an SMC-Tak is attached - using a lens cap might turn it 'off' like the K1000 though?

As a record/humorous shot of a ship in refit it's quite good. I'd have preferred the whole of the bow sprit (top left) to be included and it is too tight in the frame. The foreground clutter is distracting but without a much wider lens there may not have been too much you could have done about it (except a different angle perhaps).

The problem is that the ship is the wrong shape for the frame, trying to fit it all in introduces distractions around it (unless bokeh'd out). I'd consider a much tighter crop just surrounding the hull/superstructure and perhaps the bottoms of the masts?

EDIT - Without knowing the gear used (or available) or that there was a brick wall behind the photographer, makes it easy to suggest you should have taken a few steps back etc...

John.