I think there is an explanation in general terms, that is that there is a relationship between how much compression and image quality. It's easy to miss in the manual though.

In essence I always use the highest quality levels, just in case the shot I take happens to be a useful one that I want to do more with than usual. It would be a shame to shoot a masterpiece and then find it was web dimensions...

And an expensive solution, but it works. The death of the instruction manual is a pity - I'm sure far less people read the CD version that ever read a manual. At least with the DSLRs we still do get a manual in paper form, albeit a much reduced one in page size (though not in page count!)

Agreed. I seem to remember some suggestion that PEF offered the optimum quality, but no-one has been able to see it, so if it does it's incredibly subtle.

Not sure how much it's developed since you posted this, but there doesn't seem to be much support of the same intensity as the OP!

It's a chicken and egg thing. I came here because I use Pentax cameras. I use Pentax cameras because they suit me ergonomically. generally anyway.

I don't use Z series because I don't like them much. But I don't point it out as it's not very interesting discussing something I don't like. I'd rather enthuse about something I do like.

There's no bias there and I can assure you there's no bias in any reviews that myself or Dan do. There's probably a, not unreasonable, assumption that I only ever use Pentax, but in fact that is wrong as well, but I don't discuss it here.

ePHOTOzine reviews are honest and unbiased for a wide audience. If I enthuse about the K-r and K-5 it's because they deserve it. How unfair it would be if I had to throttle back the praise to convince. And how difficult to justify to those who don't really know or care what I use and who expect and deserve a fair appraisal.

The only way to do reviews is totally honestly, and I know first hand that there is absolutely no editorial pressure or advertiser's pressure. That too would lead to an unworkable situation.

With respect, an opinion isn't truth per se, it's your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to.

Dan's review of the I-10 and mine of the RS1000 and W90 don't seem to bear out what you are saying. I think our reports are as valid as any others.

Totally disagree with that. When was the last time you tried them out? Pentax, especially currently, have some fantastic compacts on offer.

There is the legendary Pentax 200mm Macro....for those with deep pockets!

It's a fair question Sean. It depends. Yes, the more expensive lenses are better in some ways, but all the Pentax lenses will deliver the goods if used with some degree of skill.

The 18-55mm, for example, is a cracker of a kit lens and weather-proof as well. The 16-45mm though has better performance wide open and goes usefully wider. It also has better correction for distortion - maybe less important now with the current software solutions possible.

So between those two lenses it's still a matter of "maybe" the dearer lens is worth it.

I'd get to know the kit lenses first and then go for something later on when you know where their limitations are holding you back. Then the choice of a different lens will be more obvious.

The kit lenses (18-55mm, 50-200mm) are both inexpensive and excellent. If cost is a major factor, look no further. The WR versions have the added bonus of all-weather use.