Well I've read through it and I don't see anything that says what you are interpreting it to say.

It's not possible for anyone to give you the number to set because the function is there to fine tune any lens which doesn't focus spot on. In other words, to correct for manufacturing tolerances where necessary.

If you don't have a focusing problem then it doesn't need doing, but if you think your lens(es) focus a little forwards or backwards of the correct spot then you can make an adjustment for up to 20 lenses. The cameras will know which one you have fitted and will apply the adjustment.

There are a few threads already on how to do this. It is quite different to sharpening in Photoshop or Lightroom which is sharpening to make up for any slight softening of digital images. This is about whether or not you are focusing accurately.

We've made the first A3 prints from the K-5 IIs and very impressive they are too.

Very pleased and hopefully one day we'll be able to buy a IIs or two.

It needs cloning out in Photoshop. Spotting prints works best on fibre based prints and I doubt it would be suitable for digital ones. In any event, you don't have time to practice the skills needed to prevent the end result being dreadful.

Welcome home!

8,000 refreshes doesn't seem very many to me. Is an SSD not very permanent?

I don't know Philip, it does in one way. The images in a forum are indeed quite small, so an enlargement prepared properly might well be helpful.

More helpful is being able to download a full res file to play with, but that implies a link to where it is stored.

The limitation is that this is a discussion forum and images are for illustrative purposes more than quality comparisons, which depend on so many different factors.

The biggest improvement to displayed images is where they have been prepared and sharpened to the right size. Probably you have noticed on all sites that some people's shots look crisp and some don't.

My feeling is that this is because some are processed through Photoshop to prepare them for web (or another program) and some are left for the forum software to sort out.

It does show, even at 800 pixels. Bigger always looks better of course, but the recommended spec for PU is as indicated, for now at least.

7 element converters offer better corrections. As you are magnifying the image you are also magnifying the lens defects, so the TC needs to be top quality and suited to the lens ideally. This is why there are some converters matched to lenses, but they can be as expensive as the lenses.

Converters that are not from marque ranges can vary between fairly good and abysmal.

It is a recognised technique though to use a converter to make a macro lens. For example, a 50mm f/2 lens with a 2x converter becomes a 100mm f/4 lens that still focuses just as close (not closer) - focusing distance is measured from the camera film/sensor plane.

Macro converters were used in dental photography, allowing very high magnifications. These are converters that also offer some focusing movement to give these high magnifications.

I would forget 4 element converters.

Posting oversized uploads slows the loading down, so do please stick to the 800 pixels and under 400k. It should be big enough.

The Gallery will take slightly larger, but again too big and it will slow things down for people viewing.