Not having used the Q, how does the image quality of its lenses stack up against the MX-1? I think the MX-1 lens is a major contributor to its very good image quality, so wondering if there is much advantage to using the Q unless you need focal lengths not offered by the MX-1?

The description on the US Ricoh Pentax site talks about edge to edge sharpness at all apertures. I think reference to softness above must be about bokeh and background blur.

Jon

I can understand what you mean as a fellow X100 owner. The colours that come out of that Fuji (and the black and white images for that matter) are sensational and in my view more pleasing than the K-5. Not sure any of the other manufacturers can match or beat it. You might also want to consider using something like the Colorchecker Passport to set up some profiles for the K-5 - then you can semi-automate Lightroom to adjust the images to a profile that you like.

Cheers,

Jon

I think I'd also second the suggestion of the K-30 if it comes within your price range. Excellent viewfinder, superb image quality, deep grip () and WR.

Very interested in the camera body and London based so should be able to meet. Will send pm.

Jon

How about an iPad and one of the Apps like Snapseed? Comfortably within budget and much more fun and addictive than a laptop? Better screen too. Not much good if you need office productivity tools (word processing, spreadsheets, etc) but otherwise much more portable and useful than a cheap laptop.

Adam, you might want to consider just getting an 18-250 or if you can afford it 18-270 lens for your Pentax instead - the image quality even with this kind of superzoom will be far in excess of that available from the much smaller sensors of a bridge camera like the Fuji. If you went down this route, I'd suggest keeping the 35mm prime lens for special occasions, but I think if you sell your two zooms, possibly here on this forum, you should get a long way to paying for a good secondhand 18-250 lens.

Cheers

Jon

Ah - I'd understood differently but don't know for definite. Thanks for clarifying David. That said, the detail and noise performance of the K-3 stacks up pretty well against the Nikon, so I still reckon the IR tests are likely to be a reasonably accurate representation of what it can do. The level of detail is very good in those IR shots, but I agree with others that at higher ISOs, the new body appears to be noisier than its predecessor. But then we're asking for a 24MP sensor to perform better than a 16MP one that was acknowledged to be outstanding.....perhaps an unrealistic expectation?

I'm not so sure....I compared at IR with the Nikon D7100 instead, which I understand uses the same sensor and also loses the low pass filter.

In terms of noise and detail the K-3 compares rather well to the Nikon (perhaps in line with the previous wisdom that Pentax manage to eek a bit more out of Sony sensors than some of their competitors) although the handling of reds leaves a lot to be desired. Nikon much better with those especially up the ISO scale.

I think the Sony 24MP chip looks as if it is inherently noisier than the 16MP one that it replaced, but perhaps this is unlikely to be of much relevance at the ISOs that most people actually use? And how much choice did Pentax really have? I can see they need to differentiate their high end camera from the K-50/500, and compete with the Canons and Nikons aimed at enthusiasts...they've probably done the best they can with the 24 MP chip they can use. Apart from the reds that is!

Took the MX-1 for a whistlestop visit to Bath this week and, as ever, it performed very well. I'm getting the best results I've had from any compact with the MX-1, and quite happy to go up the ISO scale too (1600 remains usable and I'm happy to leave it to go up to 640 in Auto ISO without worry). A few shots from a rather flat and grey day:










(flippy screen v useful for next one....)



















This camera is a good deal of fun....