You know what it looked like "in the flesh" Andrew, so you should really be the best judge of accuracy. This does look more realistic.

Yes indeed, I was commenting on the fact that you found the most extraordinarily odd colour version to be the most realistic. I have seen you post normal colour, but often you seem to like very pale, yellowish colours.

Just a comment, but it does seem to be consistent.

Some people specialise in things like church interiors. In the days of film prints would be extensively dodged and burned selectively. The processing would also be adjusted to make sure there was detail to be worked with in both highlights and shadows.

In this digital age, subtle HDR works very well. The only way I disagree with Nigel is that I find his colours very awry at times.

Camera Club judges are supposed to do the same cabstar, but only some of them do. Others fall into various traps and this can apply to the ones who should be at the top of the game.

As examples of good judging I would put forward Gordon Jenkins and Christine Widdall, who are at the top of their game.

I can see where he gets his argument from, and I think a lot of this stems from people feeling pressured into shooting RAW. Very often they don't need to do this at all and it just adds complication that exhausts them and creates dissatisfaction.

A modern camera set up to taste will deliver beautiful JPEG captures that need very little doing to them.

Now anyone who thinks film is less trouble though doesn't use it to its full potential. The skill involved in processing and printing from film can take a lifetime of practice. It's such a shame that it can't be shown on the web, because a truly magnificent black and white print is an art form in itself.

To put it in context, Bailey's exhibition prints that I've seen were downright poor compared to the best prints I have seen. In a book or on the web the difference is diminished and could easily be dismissed.

Film is becoming a lost art I'm afraid and for most of us digital is far, far better.

I would not hesitate to upgrade a K-5 to a K-5 IIs or a K-3, depending on funds being available.

The only caveat is that the K-5 is already excellent enough to do everything I need it to and the available cash has gone on more lenses instead.

There will come a time when I see an offer I can't refuse, which is always a good excuse to buy something.

The cropped default view looks the most believable. I would just shoot JPEG to begin with, once the defaults for that have been set up to your taste. Shoot RAW as well by all means until you are satisfied that you're not losing something.

I still find very few instances where a RAW capture is actually necessary.

Picking up the point about the Q7, that has the same sensor size as the MX-1 and I'd be hopeful that it has the same fine qualities. That's my plan, to eventually replace the Q with the Q7, and I've continued to expand my Q lens selection in anticipation.

Having said that, the original Q is not half bad in itself, it's just the MX-1 is obviously better in IQ.

As for macro, all these cameras are superb at macro shooting, much easier to use very close than any DSLR system, and at a fraction of the cost. However, I'm not convinced the macro lights add very much to macro shooting. I've not found the W90 lights to be helpful. The WG-4 has more lights, but the positioning still will give hot spots and the same bland front lighting.

This has always been a perennial problem, as compact usually meant inferior quality as well.

Just recently though almost all compact ranges seem to have gone up-market and whichever of them suits will no doubt be excellent. They do tend to be over-sharpened and over saturated, but that's to make the images more print ready for those who don't use Photoshop.

I use a W90 and these days it's mainly used for anything under water and for letting the grandchildren join in on trips out. They won't break it easily and they have a great time whilst producing amazingly good images. The WG-4 is better and I quite fancy having one. They are very compact and quality is esceptional close up, although only good to very good for more distant subjects.

The MX-1 is definitely an exceptional all-rounder. We all seem to like it, the price is great, so I'd say don't hesitate and get one while you can. It's a little bit more bulky than I'd really like but it still fits a jacket pocket and I put up with the size as it's so good.