. A K3 with 2 exclamation marks.... As near to a K3II as you could get

That's a great close in portrait, with beautiful OOF background. The flash and ambient exposures are perfectly matched, lifting the subject with a little 'kick' of light.

For sure John. I have been surprised here by how high the bar is being set and how apparently conservative the attitude to these real life limits I do think that each individuals capacity (both skill set and availability of software) for noise reduction processing will have a bearing. Not all will be equal here.

We seem to have laid out some maximum ISO limits for the K1 .... For example, I'm taking from from it that for high quality low light shots that could be used professionally, the limit is ISO 6400.

Should we be hoping for an extra stop of ISO performance from the K1 MKII sensor ?

Yes, I do think there would be great interest in such a range.

I accept the claims made by the low light gig shooters about those specific needs and requiring a bit extra over and above what the ISO capabilities of the camera can provide, in order to get those exposure times short enough for steadiness and movement freezing.

No doubt Ricoh felt some pressure to release the "pro level" zooms to go with the K1, so it could be taken seriously as an alternative to the competition, and not just for landscapes, architecture, macro and studio work.

I think they have mostly succeeded in this, apart from perceptions relating to tracking autofocus performance. The K1 is generally accepted, along with it's D FA lenses, as a serious tool for a range of photographic tasks

But because it is so reasonably priced it is also attractive to those enthusiests who enjoy the best image quality and the special features it offers but who don't have a professionals budget. For them the F2.8 zooms might be a bit over the top, and put them off. A mid range set of F4 D FA zooms surely has much to recommend it, and would bring many more sales of the K1 and it's successor .......?

The second hand alternatives, such as the few quality F and FA zooms from the past, mostly remain fairly exotic and unobtainable, so fresh new choices might surely be a hit.

I'll "get there" the more the quality discussion continues, that's what it's all about. There's been some great practical value added here, on top of the starting point which was "we need F2.8 for low light gig photography".

For now my own low light shots are taken at ISO 100, F8 and 1/180th sec ! (Do you think I would be allowed to set up about 4 flashes at a gig? ... I'm thinking one on the left, one to the right, one high from the back and one from in front !!)

I take your point Stephen also. I feel that Noise processing capabilities also play their part on an individual level.

I'm not sure that the K1 has been demonstrated to be ISO invarient?

It's definitely your screen Derek ! (It's nice to get these occasional reminders that this is a most English of forums ....)

Yes of course Chris has to sort out that red rim and finger, but it doesn't distract from the overall lovely results. Good soft directional light that complements the attributes of the model well.

I like the grey background the best, but the flash lighting in No 2 is really good I think.

Is this with your Cactus setup Chris? How is the X-TTL working so far?

It sounds like TAv mode has really come of age now! It's not one I've used, as it has limited practical potential with a camera that places strict constraints on the usable ISO range.

But with true ISO freedom then TAv can really fly!

Are Darkskies low light ISO limits generally the accepted end of the range (for serious work) ?

Hmm, I'm not quite there yet, still struggling a bit. . It's been great to read some of your thinking and how it's applied in the real life low light situation.

I do wonder if your upper ISO limits are quite conservative for the K1? I am curious as a potential future buyer. I had imagined that the K1 was very good up to at least ISO 12,800? And ok in low light at 26,200 ?

I'm trying to understand whether the ISO limits you referred to are real technical barriers, or more the result of human psychology?

Yes of course, you're right, the extra AF performance might make it well worthwhile if you can afford it. I wish we had a choice though, and new F4 zooms would be a great addition to the range I feel, and would prove popular too.