How can we 'look' at a RAW file? If you mean looking at the actual image recorded inside the file, then that can only be seen via a rendered pixel-based version of it, having gone through some conversion process. So surely any differences would only be caused by differing applications of stored metadata interpreted differently by the particular conversion software ... mostly that would be a converter programme creating an 'on the fly' preview to allow adjustments to be made and seen in real time.

It still seems to me then that any applied noise reduction is only effective when acted on by a converter programme.

K10D - what is this 'processing' prior to conversion to 'meaningful values' you refer to? Is this happening prior to de-mosaicing into a pixel-based image? What is this processing that you say occurs, presumably you mean its happening in the camera?

Is a RAW file not just that? RAW camera sensor data with no processing or manipulation? If there was processing & manipulation (eg noise reduction going on) surely for it to have any effect the RAW data would need to be 'rendered' into a pixel-based image, so it would no longer be a RAW file.

Give us another version - just restore a touch of the blue to the road and roof. I'm sure its just a case of reaching a midway point - the adjustment may have been a bit severe. I still don't really believe there could have been that much blue reflecting from the sky ???

The pathway in the 2nd one I think strikes a nice balance between coolness and a natural grey.

Well, maybe we just need to get our definitions straight - I'm sorry if I'm using any words wrongly. As I said '... a rendering process, such as an in-camera conversion to JPEG or TIFF...' So, that's my meaning clear enough. So by my definition the camera producing a RAW file is not a 'rendering'.

I don't know if thats innacurate - another term might be 'de-mosaicing'. Anyway, I thought the question was clear enough - I didn't think that a noise reduction process could be 'effected' on a RAW file without a conversion process into a 'rendered' (raster) pixel form ?? But its a question for further discussion.

No. I wouldn't choose on that basis. For the purpose you have (a 'grab at the door' quick 'n easy camera) is it really another SLR you're looking for?

How can a camera 'apply' NR to its RAW file? Surely any noise reduction parameter inputs can only be effected by a rendering process, such as an in-camera conversion to JPEG or TIFF, or upon opening in a computer programme that can read the NR metadata and provide a preview of the effect before rendering?

I think the 'greyer' version is better - maybe a touch more blue in the balance would be even better, but the 2nd version looks more 'correct' to me.

The church tower has a slight barrel bend to the right, and a slight lean backwards I think.

Yellow's fine I like the colour one best. B & W seems to suck something out out of it. But I'll tell you what I'd do .... a bit fiddly maybe, but I'd select all the windows and try and get some deep blue into the windows, a bit like a polariser effect - this will look more natural in relation to the sky.

Really effective painterly feel to these, and lovely colours as well.

I can't help but want to see the slanted building in bold colours as well!

I wrote here some time ago with some rare praise for PC World in High St Kensington, who had a small dedicated Pentax display with a K30 to try.

Went in today and found the K30 replaced with a Sony CSC of some kind (didn't bother to even look at it), sitting on top of the Pentax display which featured a video demonstration of the K30! There was an smc 35mm prime and 55-200 zoom in the cabinet next to the video monitor. But no display SLR to fit the lenses onto????