David (davidstorm), I usually spot your photos easily in the gallery - its a combination of the locations and more specifically the colours I think ... you manage to find a particular autumnal / orangey hue to foliage which is very attractive.

You also tend to reproduce cloudy skies with very high contrast - I mean a high dynamic range within the clouds themselves, emphasizing deep dark moisture filled lower areas and very bright sun-reflecting highlights in the same sky. I, however, tend to reduce this contrast range by instinct, but for your shots it can be a straight give-away.

Good advice I think Defeats the purpose of it all really, which makes me wonder why the publishers feel it so necessary to impose the system?

Alistair, how about this one - can this colour version compete? Sagelight Pro Vibrance, Polariser and some deep shadow recovery / bright highlight reduction.

Lets remember the original point which was always about the absurdity of the percentage scoring method, and how one member felt that affected negatively the credibility of the review. It was not about the reviewer, the K3 or any specific comments or responses that Daniel expressed. I agree about the absurdity element - when you can't trust a system it makes you work harder to try and understand the truth, and as a paying customer of the magazines I expect them to do more of that for me.

There has been plenty of support here for Daniel and the review generally, and I agree, great to have an experienced Pentax person given the opportunity and exposure, and its good to believe that the writer will have a deeper knowledge of the product than we normally see.

But, despite this, it doesn't change the fact that the points system undermines all this for me - and clearly some others too. The more Daniel explains the 'methodology' the more discredited it becomes ...

'The Canon 70D is very nice, but I don't think it's as capable as the K-3, and, for example, build quality is nowhere near as nice. However it's cheaper. It scored 94% in a previous issue of OP (Andy Luck did that one, he does quite a few for them). I looked at this review, compared the respective marks, thought how I would mark it, thought about how that would compare to the K-3, and came up with a result'. So, you know about another persons score in another magazine for a similar camera you also know - you take this score, factor in your own feeling on the comparisons, and create a new score that supposedly somehow relates to the first one...

Again, it's not about Daniel - he no doubt has little choice, and that's 'a way' - but it only fuels my disgruntlement about the whole system. Maybe it is time the magazines found a proper method of scoring cameras - they might even get more people buying them rather than flicking through at the newstand quickly picking out large bold type percentage scores.

Hmmm, I'd suggest a little saturation boost! OK - there wasn't much colour in there - but really, it is better I think, softer looking. I'm sure you could bring out some more tones - Sagelight 'Pro Vibrance'?

Thats the key point - its not about any individuals experience and knowledge of a range of cameras ... that qualification should be a given for any 'credible' review. Its about the meaninglessness of percentages. you said earlier you would like to have given our K5II 100% for value ... well, then that is to imply that there would never be, in future or in the past, another camera offering better value. That is the ridiculousness of it.

What I would respect in clear, defined parameters for making direct comparisons of certain features between competing models - it may well mean thinking outside the box. Of course, in such a system Pentax will always come through strongly

Well, sure ... I'm not considering any particular review, I make general remarks about the whole scoring concept in relation to camera reviews ... unfortunately, taking an individual reviewers personal choices and depth of knowledge of a single brand as a plus for that brand actually calls into question credibility also - I think this thread started off with a comment hoping for 'finally' a positive review.

But surely in fact what is required is a wide working experience with a range of models, as well as some very specific comparable criteria where a more scientific approach can be made. Again, I'm sure Daniel meets this requirement, I'm not talking about him specifically. But I think magazines would be well advised to apply these requirements to their reviewers rather than percentage point scores.

Well I'm a long standing paying customer of many photo magazines, and an avid reader of percentage-scored reviews - and I agree 100% that these scores do ruin the credibility of much of the work. The scores are so ridiculously close in most cases, and I have found often do not tally with the overall tone and sentiment expressed in words. They force me to deliberately ignore the figures created and try and judge from the slightest tiny detail or nuance in the wording how the camera performed in reality, or more specifically, how it compared to others.

Daniel, I don't recall any reviewers names specifically, so its nothing personal, but you said that you created your percentage points to some extent by comparing the figures to those generated by past reviews of comparable models - that surely tests credibility? Unless you were only using your own personal past work as direct comparison - how could you have any instinct for what another reviewer had felt when generating a percentage figure in a past review?

Its a very nice composition Alistair, classical really Give me a bit more room on the right side and I'd be even happier (I think you could easily have lost a couple of trees on the left to give more on the right - a shunt of viewpoint leftwards would keep that little 'islet' in the right spot). But it's beautiful - everything sits with a real poise and balance.

Its crying out for colour though! Please, lets see it in glorious muted soft colour tones.

Main foreground does, with its sharp metallic look - the HDR effect does work here I agree. But the background spoils it - the blue is too strong and there's some bleeding of light around the columns and excessive high contrast on the other elements in the background (eg the buildings you can see through the gaps)which makes it all look untidy.

But a great idea, just needs some housekeeping