Getting distracted into RAW/JPEG discussion will drag us away into a different territory, but going back to the II or IIs question, both Pentax and Nikon have clearly expected that the majority of users will go for the standard versions.

Is this just fear on their part that someone will manage to show some moire in a test and their sales will be decimated as a result? If the IIs was the only option we can be sure that someobody would do that, using some ludicrous subject matter. Or is it just that the extra resolution is truly only needed by photographers who produce billboard sized advertising shots, and for most users we are better off the an AA filter in place?

After all, our current pictuires are quite sharp and can sometimes even be too sharp, depending on how we process them.

It will be very interesting to see what the first tests bring.

The results and critique are now up for viewing. I didn't realise that I'd just spent about an hour and a quarter doing that, time certainly does fly by when you get absorbed in something!

The K-5 IIs looks an interesting proposition. It's the sort of thing that would perhaps need living with for a while to appreciate fully its potential.

The purpose is to enjoy the increased resolution.

Back to the manual I think, unless someone else who owns the camera knows the answer?

Probably it is indicating the number of images left to be taken on the card. If it's a large card that will accept more than 999 images, then 999 is the most the display can show.

Good scientists re-examine the facts and develop a new, improved theory.

I've been looking on the web to see what articles might assist. It goes to probably too complex stuff, but from a cursory glance it's clear that all the information is already out there. The Nikon site went into quite a lot of technical stuff regarding the camera side, and I'd start with Adobe to see what they have published.

Probably the best book to get a thorough understanding of what image processing is about is one of the Martin Evening books on Photoshop CS5 (or CS6) for Photographers.

We haven't heard from George for a while, but we've heard from plenty of other regulars, on a regular basis, so to speak.

You can't get about much if you think I'm only on this forum....

The problem people see is that your assertion has not been proved, rather more disproved, but you are still trying to prove it.

This is not the way to good science. Experiments made with the intention of proving somthing don't work, and even established scientific minds can fall into this trap.

The process is to postulate a theory and then test it, but without preconceptions as to what we will find. How we go about the experiment is vitally important and what people are saying is that this exercise was flawed from the start.

Perhaps they are tring to avoid confusion with referring to this site? Our own link states "Pentax Forums - Pentax User Photographer Forums" so I can see how it could be confusing.