As Mike points out, the missing words were "by Pentax" but as you say the fish eye is the obvious one. I have that and a 14-24mm zoom. Either way, no big issue as enlightenment is normally for the better good.

Best regards

Can you elaborate on this a little as I have two FF zooms that are wider.

Best regards

Three very good images. You should be well pleased with the results.

Best regards

A good set of images.
What have I missed as far as camera capability?

Camera Maker: PENTAX
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2011-02-27 12:59:15 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 50.0mm (35mm equivalent: 75mm)
Aperture: f/16.0
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
ISO equiv: 80
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Center Weight
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: Yes (Auto, return light detected)
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Photographer: Bret Pulkka-Stone
Copyright: Bret Pulkka-Stone

Best regards

George, I know you meant the "Royal we".

Best regards

Agreed and written in my OP. More Pentax processing on JPEGS than RAW (making the assumption that RAW has minimal processing). If all of the brands RAW files are very close due to having common sensors in some models, then post processing should result in near identical IQ's.

Thus the lens then becomes the critical component in IQ.

This process of evaluation is only to get the grey matter working and open up a line of thought that most would not follow nor even consider worth while as the end result will always be "we have what we have" and therefore are stuck with it, regardless of model/make.

I was asked by a professional video producer (at the weekend) "which I thought better for skin tones, the Pentax or the Nikon"? (I had a pair of Nikons and my K7 with me, hence the recent purchase of double straps)I replied that the Pentax colours were more accurate for skin tones.

(I do have my Nikons set to emulate the same tones and colour.
Please don't ask “then why have Nikons”, that's not for this thread).

He smiled and said he does not often hear that from Nikon users to which I replied that I'll use anything that's fit for purpose and that I've had Pentax for far too long to give up quality. Then he pulled a K10 out of his bag.

Sooo many Pentaxians in Western Australia.

Best regards

Having seen the way the women were looking at the camer (6x7), I'd buy a duffer just to have over my shoulder (without film in it).

Mechanical Magnatism!

Best regards

Yes John but in film days, everyone had the option of using the best lab for developing and printing,something all had access to, they don't now.

Just as, after the "raw data" leaves a pre-amp, it can be fed to a duff amp and speakers.

Best regards

As previously posted, the size increase in sensor area from APS-C to 35mm FF is more than 35mm FF to MF yet it's not accepted to be worth the move? (if we had a Pentax FF). I was at a shoot last Sunday with a Pentaxian who had a 6x7 Pentax with him, he had a "hooded look down at" finder on it. It was like looking at a flat screen tv! How bright?

Well I see that advantage with a FF viewfinder over my Pentax DSLR's. Not to the same extent, but it is worth the benefits. Its always easy to dismiss what we don't have just like some members here said they didn't need fast AF or low noise hi iso before the K5 arrived.

If Pentax launched the equivalent of a D3/D3s plus long telephoto's, people would sell their familys to buy in.

Best regards

A Pentax RAW file (as well as any other mark) processed in any suitable software does not reflect the whole and can be made to look good or bad depending on the user skill set.

It surely must come down to lens and sensor combination and the qualities of both as influenced by the manuafacturer?

Best regards