Set the ISO manually in Tv or Av mode and the camera tries to compensate in the opposite direction by shifting Aperture or Shutter speed respectively... so it doesn't replace exposure comp. When shooting hand-held at night I usually have the ISO set manually and quite high in any case, so that the shutter speed doesn't become undesirably slow.

I think it depends what you shoot. As mentioned I shoot at night a lot, often hand-held and with no flash. Sodium Vapour street lighting is hardly the ideal light source, but I like the feel and atmosphere of it, undiluted by adding flash. I frequently go to around -3 or even slightly more. The dynamic range of the sensor is not so forgiving when it comes to highlight clipping. Also underexposing a little more than is strictly necessary helps keep the shutter speed reasonably fast too. I'm not generally looking for a ton of motion blur in my shots. Unlike with clipped highlights, the ability to lift detail out of underexposed shadows with the K-5 sensor is little short of miraculous. (And with Lightroom's awesome noise reduction the shots still look great).

With the +/-2 limitation I'd probably just find myself shooting in Manual instead of Av most of the time. However I would miss the immediacy of shooting in Av with the exposure comp set where I want it. It just feels more natural to me.

I could live with +/-3.

Just took a look at the specs and seeing it only offers Exposure Compensation up to +/-2 is a bit off-putting. I very frequently use more than this and forcing you to switch to full manual mode every time you need more is just a downright unnecessary inconvenience.

I mean, having the same sensor as the K-5, this is presumably a camera that will have exceptional low light performance, right? Well if you shoot in very low light as much as I do more than +/-2 is simply a necessity to prevent the camera from overcompensating and trying to turn night into day all the time (and overexposing any small, bright light sources in the process - a city at night time is full of these!). Why make a camera with great low light performance and then subtract one of the features you need to make proper use of it?

The only reason I can think of to reduce the range of exposure compensation available is to stop idiots from setting it on some ridiculous value by accident and then wondering why all their shots are horribly under/over exposed... which I would have thought to be an extremely minor consideration.

Maybe it says something about the intended target market for this camera... people who think they need supreme image quality but don't have the chops to make use of it?

Still, don't get me wrong. I think this camera will do well. Now I'm holding out for a version with an EVF *AND* +/-5 Exposure Comp.

A second e-dial would be nice too. Funnily enough I have the 'spare' one on the K-5 permanently set up to adjust exposure comp when in Av or Tv modes. (Who'd have guessed?)

Add an EVF and it would tempt me. Without... not so much.

Also I can't fathom why they couldn't have given it a larger (and hence more comfortable and secure) grip. Given how far the lens mount protrudes a considerably larger grip would not make the camera bulkier in any way that could possibly inconvenience anybody.

I don't get why people think it's ugly, though. It is really quite a nice looking camera. It's just different.

I might just start saving up for the next model up featuring a decent EVF... if it never transpires I'm sure I'll find something else to spend the money on.

I think it's a fantastic looking camera, actually. At lot of posters on the other forum are acting like it's so ugly it's the end of the world.

...

... Roll your eyes all you like, but that statement made it pretty clear you were assuming at least some of your audience couldn't appreciate B&W photography. No other interpretation makes sense of it.

I prefer the colour versions of some of these photos but not all of them. A few work better in the original B&W. It depends on the photo but I suspect it's also incredibly subjective.

I certainly don't see any problem with colouring these photographs - this act does not in any way effect the originals, which are still as they have always been.

From a copyright perspective, as long as she does not actually 'sell' these and make money out of them directly I don't have a problem with it. Using them as examples of her work is not 'directly' making money out of them or in any way making out the originals are her own work so I really don't have a problem with it.

On the other hand, I abhor censorship of any kind so to say "she shouldn't be allowed to do this" to me is a far more offensive than anything she has done - and even if what she had done was highly offensive I still believe it would be wrong to prevent her from doing it.

People have the right to be offended but they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to suppress or destroy that which offends them!

I find the apparent assumption that anybody who has posted in this thread is unable to appreciate Black & White photography, well... odd, to say the least. Bordering on the ridiculous in fact.

One might just as well accuse you or anybody who preferred the original black & white versions of the photographs being discussed in this thread of being 'unable to appreciate colour photography'.

...And just to be clear I'm not accusing you or anybody else of any such thing, in fact I'm pointing out it would be equally ridiculous to do so.

Each to his own, I suppose, but on that site the K-5 images look more detailed, more vibrant and more three dimensional to my eye. In other words better in every respect.

The difference is at its most striking when I look at some of the lettering on the Martini or Baileys bottles, or for three dimensionality, the mickey mouse figure.

Decent RAW processing software (like Lightroom) allows you to set up presets and do batch processing. I.E. automatically apply the same noise reduction to each photo taken at the same ISO, same corrections to each photo taken with the same lens, and so forth. Basically everything that would normally take place in camera when creating a jpeg (and more, if you want).

Not unless you're unhappy with the image quality from your zooms. I personally don't have any primes at the moment because I must admit I prefer the range of framing possibilities you get from a zoom. Many people prefer primes though and I think it depends on your shooting style among other things.

I do hope to get a 100mm macro soon however - but macro is a different matter because you can alter the framing of your subject by moving a few centimeters backwards or forwards. With a long telephoto used for distant subjects, for example, it might be a matter of walking a few miles (or possibly having to be able to fly, depending on the terrain)...

Just the other day the 8mm setting on my 8-16mm saved me from having to try to walk on water, which I'm not very good at.