Oh thats good, so you do like my originals better then ?

Well this seems to be the crux of it, doesn't it - what are the intentions and objectives? ... and how effective is the result bearing in mind the intentions .... I think anyone who knows me and my approach to photography would realise that the shots are not a failed attempt to produce images that are not distorted - clearly I've made no attempt at this at all. Whether its is possible to correct them to a physically realistic state is a moot point really ...

What was the intention? ... I used the lens to capture a big space encompassing a naturally rounded and curvey environment, a capture that would display all the key elements visable to a bystander glancing around and give a sense of the character of the place. I expected the viewer, as I did myself, to accept the effects caused by the lens, which exaggerate the shapes of the objects and natural bay curvature, and take it all in without demanding a physically / geometrically accurate reproduction ..... the reponse I quoted from John suggests that was the way they were in fact interpreted .... ?

What about if ... ??

(I use John here as the best example of the 'its acceptable' viewpoint)

Thats very interesting Algi, thanks for trying things out. Its always good to see demonstrations and experiments on images ... well, lets see what our panel of Pentax Experts here think - are the 'corrected' versions better than my own originals ???

Thanks Alan! Will check that out, and the rubber ones as well.

I spotted this little lens in a Cash Converter recently ... Miranda 35-70mm f3.5 ... absolutely spotless, appears mint - for £5.00 there wasn't much debating really. Its apparently the same as the Cosina model, sold by Dixons in the late 80's, according to info on the web. Its a 'A' type lens so very practical on Pentax DSLRs.

There are varying reports on its image quality, difficult get a consistent overview really, but actually my own initial trials are very promising - IQ looks fine to me in terms of sharpness - some purple/ blue fringing at the widest apertures. Its a constant f3.5 as well, which is useful, and might be helpful to me for portraits out and about where its not practical to fit the 75-150 zoom - in any case, its much lighter and quicker to use than my old Pentax zoom.

It didn't come with a hood, its a 52mm thread, but my DA 18-55 hood won't work on it becuause it needs to wrap around the lens barrel more, and this Mirander is too thin on the barrel with nothing to grip the hood. Does anyone know where I start to look for a compatable hood, or indeed any specific compatable hoods. I'd be very grateful for any ideas! Thanks.

Had to laugh at this one guys! Its a kindly comment, but what is it saying about the the K3 ?? Its often the sort of comment you hear when someones used a pinhole, or Box Brownie!!

I did say something earlier, but good to see your lake district pics again Jules!

Its a good idea to show a set exporing around a small area as its very informative to see the same objects (like the 'edge' rock formations here) from different viewpoints, so well done - I get a great sense of the place. I also like your inclusion of some people, perhaps by necessity, but you've made it work mostly as they complement things by showing what actually happens here!

There are some lovely angles with good light - I think the best shot is 8. Long and Winding Road, which is so well laid out, but has a very good tonal balance. 7. Spiderman is weaker I think tonally - I'd reduce the sky brightness a bit, and see if there's extra highlights to pull out from the distant ground areas. 5. Preparing the Ropes is a striking image, although in a rather unnatural way - the infocus centre areas look a little too sharp - the people certainly do, at least for this web size display - and the woman with the blue top looking your way does not look very impressed with what you're up to!

Thanks for giving such a good photographic impression of a beautiful spot!

Its good to see you back up and running with Pentax again, glad you have been able to get hold of a K3 again, and nice to see these familiar Lakes scenes.

David, I think you probably know well and truly the chances of me being discourarged are about as slim as , ... well, a very slim thing indeed! As always I am very glad to hear any views and opinions here, all are valid and worth considering.

The personal reactions to the shots vary between people as they always do ... regarding the wide angle ones, here's an expression of the opposing view to yours David ...

I think John has picked up here the way I was approaching this. I need the wide angle to include all the elements I need in the frame, to give the sense of the place and the scope of the view - BUT, the price to pay is the distortions. Truth is, I can't even correct all these without cropping in way too much, so I have to compromise somewhere. Then its a judgement call on what to straighten and what to let go ... here I find the natural curvature of the bay can be exmphasised by these distortion curves, and I felt that it did suit the subject. But equally, I accept that to some it will look unnatural and therefore not a valid photographic reproduction .....

The extent of the effects vary with differing subjects - for example, the same lens is used for the last shot here, where the curve of the bay is less, so the distortion is much easier to manage - likewise some architectural scenes can be corrected very successfully. So I'm not keen to ditch the 14mm altogether (no, in fact you'd have a job to get it off me!) ... is there another wide angle lens you feel would be better for me? As you point out , the detail and resolution is something I highly value, and I am a bit of a wide angle zoom sceptic as some will know...

MrB, thanks for your words also, and point taken again about the verticals etc! Glad you like them generally

That seems to be the verdict after an interesting discussion calling it Noise Reduction is a bit confusing I feel. AFAIK there is no effective 'noise reduction' (as in a blurring type process, or colour noise reduction) applied in camera at all - the RAW file at most might carry an NR metadata value that could be read by Pentax Digital Camera Utility, but you'd have to be opening the files up in PDCU to see it applied by the software - I am not aware of any of these metadata values being applied by any other software.

I wonder, even for JPEG - is there actually any direct noise reduction process carried out on the saved files by the camera processor (like there is for sharpness, saturation, contrast etc) ??