Taking pictures in JPEG is not a reason to expect them not to be sharp. I know there is a lot of talk about RAW capture and there can easily be the perception that it is the only route to quality, but that isn't true by a long way.

There are lots of professionals that use JPEG as well as lots who use RAW, and both camps will expect their pictures to be sharp.

I'm impressed that you could get up so early in the morning!

We have a section to discuss flash, but here I'm talking about the opposite. I don't really like the harsh flash of small portable guns (studio flash is another matter) and actually prefer to use the light that is available naturally. This might mean upping the ISO if i need to hand hold, but I reckon this is an incredibly powerful digital tool.

Previously it would not have been possible to load a film of variable speed (not quite true, but almost quite true) but now we can. Fantastic!

Do we think available light is the better option generally?

:

I feel very comfortable with the continuous design ethos of the Pentax SLR range. I would describe it as having both beauty and ergonomics - beauty in its quality of manufacture and ergonomics in its outstanding design.

I wouldn't describe it as a blob or a mongrel at all....And to be honest I have always found Canon cameras to be large, unwieldy and graceless by comparison.

However, no doubt there are plenty of others out there who will have other views.

I guess it depends on how you process your images and what final effect you want, but my observations are that I never find a need to sharpen beyond 100% for an A3 print and also that sharpening is the very last action in the process. When I do use RAW (and it may surprise you that I do sometimes) I do not sharpen at all at that stage.

The variations possible are endless but if you sharpen last you won't go far wrong.

In the sense that the images are pretty much ready for printing as they are, unlike a DSLR, I agree. But the A20 is not a beginners camera by any means - it is bristling with options and it takes a little work to get the best out of it. In many ways a DSLR is much easier to use!

The most difficult thing about the A20 is that everythhing is in a menu system, so you need to know what you want to do and how to find it quickly. This is just a matter af practice, but photographic knowledge hepls a lot.

I have an A20 and it produces very nice sharp pictures that need minimal adjustment. I suggest you set the mode to P (Program) and there should not be a problem.

However, as with all cameras, if you don't think about the photography you won't get the best results. If, for example, you have lots of sky in your shots then the pictures may well be dark.

Why not shoot some pictures of moderate outdoor subjects (phone boxes, flowers, whatever takes your fancy) on the P setting and see what happens. If that's OK then maybe a basic book on photography will give you enough information to make a huge difference.

It does need some investment of time and effort to get the results.

It is more to do with the closer packing of the pixels I think. I know what you mean, but once Unsharp Mask is applied, IMHO with a slightly wider radius of maybe 1.9 and a value of 100% then the image is as sharp as you could possibly wish. And of course there is more detail.

I used to sharpen the *istDS at around a radius of 1 and a value of 50%, so there is a difference in handling.

Digital SLRs do need some post-capture processing and this is really a good thing for image quality. I'd rather have that than overdone in-camera effects.

However, if it suits you better, don't forget you can up the sharpness, saturation, contrast in the camera menus.

You can use your ring flash anyway, in Manual mode.

In my early days with digital cameras, I gave up medium format when I found my digital macro shots were so superior it was ridiculous. They were cleaner, sharper, more detailed....

I wouldn't know about the Contax N Digital, other than the reviews of it were not very good. No doubt they made improvements, but it does make the point that cost is not everything.

I would expect the Pentax K10D, for instance, to probably out-perform the Leica M8, and at a much lower cost level. The expertise and the SLR design are definitely in Pentax's favour and Leica seem to be struggling with the limitations of the rangefinder lens design. Some of the compromises, such as providing filters to eliminate unwanted colour problems, are a bit dismal at Leica prices...

Ivor Matanle has, no doubt, a wealth of knowledge on classic cameras, but it's not specific to one make and this is where i feel it falls apart a little. No matter how good the research there is no substitute for familiarity and having actually used the cameras being written about.

I have done Pentax User articles on the Spotmatic, K and M ranges and I have used all those cameras and lenses. Even though I made sure I used them freshly again before I wrote anything, it's no absolute garantee that no errors can creep in.