Looking for opinions and a vote on it ... what would give more 'bang per buck' - a new lens (or 2), or a K3 camera?

Here's the issue ... taking close-ups of flowers back in spring, I was pleased with the results, but I don't have a macro lens, not even a 1:2 (which would be enough). My telephotos will not focus very closely, leaving my subject occupying only 20-40% of the frame in many cases. Cropping in is very effective, and the K7 performed admirably. But there's a limit ...

Hypothetically this is - say I could spend the money, around £900. I don't know what lenses, but I'm thinking this could buy a couple of much better choices for close-up work (not necessarily true macro, just better close focussing and IQ generally). So any suggestions gladly received.

But the money could buy a K3. Thats an increase from 14.5mp to 24mp, plus other IQ improvements also. Now, limiting it just to image quality for close-up shots (I know the K3 will bring plenty of other benefits as well, but lets discount that for now), where do you think the money would be best spent?

Will I get better images with new, close focussing glass, giving me bigger subjects on the K7 .... or will I be better with the K3, the same lenses keeping the subjects smaller and just crop in with all those 24mp?

Be grateful for your thoughts Don't forget your vote!

Thanks, Nigel

Very good - the leaf sets it off beautifully, colours and sharpness all brilliant!

Looking again on a different monitor I change my mind about the skies - they all seem a good brightness so I'd keep them as they are. It may be just a case of a small brightness increase on some of the foregrounds would help.

Do you use Photoshop or Elements? Another approach that could make the dividing line smoother would be layer masking. This way you can control the blend between the ground and sky more precisely.

Create a levels adjustment layer, make your brightness adjustment, then use a black brush to paint over the sky on your top layer (the levels adjustment one). This painting will mask the over-bright sky you now have, revealing the correct sky under.

As you get nearer the edge you can reduce the brush size for more precision, and at the very dividing line you can change the brush opacity (toolbar control above the photo) to make it smoother. Good thing about masking is that if you go to far onto the ground you just change to a white brush and brush back your mistake.

I missed these originally for some reason - glad I saw them now ... love them! Really wonderful clarity & depth. The medium format film is giving our top DSLRs a run for the money! I'm especially impressed with the contrast quality from the scans. Do you use 'Epson Scan' software or something more sophisticated?

Sharpness is obviously not a problem here ... i'd be interested in your thoughts on the best sharpening approach. Is it better to apply a fair whack of sharpening to the scan itself, or leave it until editing later?

Thanks for showing these great examples.

A beautiful & peaceful looking place, lucky you ! I like the silhouettes and detail in 'Roof Decor' in particular.

What camera / lens do you use? The outdoor shots are quite contrasty, giving quite black shadows I find. If they are camera JPEGs do you have a contrast control that could be reduced, and a 'low contrast' slider (the K7 has it with a small downward pointing triangle symbol). A couple of notches up on this would help the shadows I feel.

Look forward to seeing more from this great trip!

Thanks Gary for this workflow, very detailed and informative. Regarding the Sharpening, as you are using LR I would assume that the order of any of the adjustments you make, sharpening included, makes absolutely no difference to the end output? I'm guessing that ChrisA was thinking about the effect of seeing the sharpening earlier on and how that might affect the later adjustments?

The idea of sharpening at the very end, as a quality maximizing ideal, only applies to pixel based editing (ie in Photoshop or the Elements Editor).

Would you say that AWB is the best to use in mixed lighting generally? I'm assume it would be very difficult to pick any other suitable preset or create a custom setting that would cover many shots?

You've picked out plenty of interest around that area and have included many elements in the images for the eye to take in. I like the framing, viewpoints & angles which all give a very good sense of place.

You were fighting some very strong light from the sky there, and you've included plenty of it as well. This has meant that the overall exposures on the ground are low, with quite a bit of blocking in the shadow areas, and this has taken the sheen and depth off the colours a bit I think. My suggestion for PP would be to select off the skys, pull the highlights down on the skys (not anything else or you'll get rainclouds developing!), then inverse the selections and work on the ground alone, starting with some shadow lifting and small midtone in increase. A bit of extra saturation after that would do it.

Thankyou Brian, I appreciate your feedback ... the tilting angles on the Michelin Building & Victoria & Albert Musuem have raised doubts. Truth is I did it for both practical & 'artistic' reasons ... there was a fair bit of superfluous stuff around the base of the tower and I was stuck in a small gardens squeezed on the roadside, so I went for the creative options to allow more of the tower in the frame. I will try some straighter ones with a wider lens from another spot sometimes.

The Bartok exposure was deliberate to let the broody nature of the statue come through, and the Brompton Oratory shots were really to show the extremes of exposure control available even when shooting in the same light. I'll try another version with a more balanced brightness as well.

Thanks David & Barrie also ... glad you liked them David, and the car shots Barrie CMW, I appreciate your points there. As I've said I was experimenting with exposure & metering techniques. I was amazed at the extreme variation available from a single position in the same lighting (as in the Brompton Oratory shots), and all within the limits of handholding techniques-wise.

Its interesting that the last one appears 'overexposed' - its not of course, the midtones are only about a stop or 2 above 50% (on my exposure scale), not much more than white skin should be. But the range is more compressed towards the upper end as I was going for a high-key result - the only real shadow is around the tree in the left corner and a little bit under the gables and underhangs. Maybe it would be better with some shadow boosting to give more depth?

Thanks, a happy partnership indeed! I wasn't 'around' back in 2009, but I am puzzled by the K7's less than enthusiastic reception. Maybe it was a case that it didn't give people everything they were hoping for at the time? However, the new body style offered plenty to consider, an alternative to the K20 and an obvious upgrade for many I'd have thought? Maybe not?

In any case, it offered extraordinary value for me and a route into high quality DSLR photography, and continues to offer so much. A fantastic tool that has got great potential to offer for a long time to come.

Thanks Gamka ... there was just one gold Ferrari - it was attracting plenty of attention, the K7 was massively outnumbered by the flood of camera - phones snapping it around me ... what was funny was how their owners seemed to automatically stand aside for me but not really for each other - the K7 with BG4 grip and the old Tamron prime must have made me look very serious!

Gravel, thats very kind, I appreciate that. I'll reserve you a copy when I get it done!