Nice idea to be able to handle multiple users that way too. I put my card in, the camera loads my settings. My wife puts hers in, camera loads her settings.

Hmmm, I must bear this in mind when designing my ultimate-camera-which-makes-the-kitchen-sink-obsolete.

Yeah I've heard something similar too, though when I said "I doubt it's noticeable" I was really referring to the difference in performance between shooting in RAW+ as opposed to just RAW, which is going to be a lot less than the difference between RAW (or RAW+) and JPEG.

To be fair, these sharpness comparisons are 100% crops from images and only likely to be visible to pixel-peepers which, oh, 99.9 times out of 100 is not the audience I'm likely to be showing off pictures for the benefit of. In fact I can't think why I would be at all.

One situation that may occur would be if I feel the need to crop a picture that closely because, say, my lens and/or feet could not get me anywhere near close enough to the subject. Then of course I can bear the sharpness in mind and use the RAW file. But that won't be the case for most photos, generally speaking.

As you said 'getting precisely the same effect' isn't the purpose of RAW, but if I find a certain in-camera pleasing, it can still give me a reference point for comparison in processing the RAW file. So again, I'm failing to see the disadvantage of having both. :

I know what you're talking about as the K-5 is the first DSLR I have actually owned so I was quite accustomed to using other people's cameras before that (my wife's and also my dad's which I had on a long-term loan for a while).

The solution would for cameras to allow user profiles - not just the 'user modes' available on the K-5 but essentially logging into the camera as whole different user with your own complete setup, much like you can do on a PC running any modern OS. This would not be difficult for camera manufacturers to implement in the camera firmware, but as far as I'm aware nobody's actually done it.

I don't think I overlooked anything - my point was I like, at least from time to time, to play with the in camera filters and effects as I shoot. Given that's the case for me it's a no-brainer. If I want to apply the filter/effects afterwards I can do that too. The camera just creates a second JPEG. If wasted time in post is the only downside I can live with it. It only amounts to the time taken to decide between the JPEG and the RAW and move an extra file to the trash. Maybe if I were a professional that would have an impact but right now it's tiny fish.

Perhaps I could have re-worded that as:

"However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects as you shoot, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples."

...Which is really what I meant, so apologies for any confusion which may have made it look like I was ignoring your earlier point there.

I'm a beginner, so I constantly screw up. Frankly I find the suggestion which I have encountered in certain Photography magazines etc. that JPEGs are for beginners and RAW for the more advanced photographer quite bizarre. Beginners screw up more so have all the more reason to shoot in RAW!

However I also like to play with the digital filters etc. Sometimes they can give really pleasing results straight out of the camera. Hence I shoot in RAW+.

Get to play with in-camera filters/effects + Still have RAW to fall back on = Best of both worlds.

As you mentioned memory is cheap. As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer. Why choose when you can, quite literally, have your cake AND eat it.

However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples.

Unless I'm intending to make a large print of the end result the quality issue seems moot - I'd have to make a real effort to actually see the difference even on my 27" 2560 x 1440 (higher than 'true HD' resolution) iMac screen.

If I suddenly decide I want make that big print at a later date - well if it's a picture I liked I'll have kept the RAW anyway.

If you've applied some digital filters/effects or whatever (which is what we're discussing) it is going to take a bit more than one click. Hence shooting in RAW+. You still have the RAW so there's no need to attempt the impossible transformation mentioned.

Unless I'm missing some major point that's staring me in the face here, the only disadvantage to shooting RAW+ is you take up a little more space on your memory card. It's possible you might slow down camera performance a little bit too, but I doubt it's noticeable.

Is there a third option? I tend to shoot in RAW+ so I can mess around with filters and effects without sacrificing the RAW file. OTOH if a JPEG looks fine straight out of the camera or needs only minor tweaking, I see no reason to waste time working with the RAW file.

Okay, shooting RAW+ takes a little more space on your memory cards, but compared to your Camera and Lenses or your Computer and Software, memory is pretty cheap. It makes sense to invest in a little more of it to get the most out of these more expensive items and save a little time in PP without limiting your options.

Yes I noticed the comments about the lenses too. There is a degree of truth in that insofar as it's somewhat harder to get hold of very long telephoto lenses for Pentax, and there is definitely less choice in this particular area. Again, though, a comment which should have been explained a bit further.

Well now that I have gotten over the initial sense of outrage (one tends to form an emotional attachment to a thing one spent six months worth of savings on), I'll dig out the actual magazine issue, as it's just occurred to me that the online reviews are often (sometimes drastically) shortened versions of the printed ones. Maybe they explain themselves better in print.

Not tonight, though. Have an early start tomorrow and it's bedtime for me fairly soon.