Old shots like this, with their rekindling of personal memories and insight back into the past, will always hold a value and fascination that stands up in spite of the technology involved - in this case the particular film grain and the tones of the colours add to the history as well.

As a set I appreciate these aspects, but in terms of the events and individual stories they illustrate I find them fairly mundane. And I don't agree that modern IQ improvements are irrelevant here - I think if these had the crispness, cleanness, clarity and detail of the best digital can offer now they would in fact come to greater life and offer up a whole new punch that they lack.

There's a guy who shoots in a sort of 'large format architectural style' (the best I can describe the techniques)', but he shoots environmental portraits like that - amazing stuff like old 70's swimming pools in Detroit with one child looking mournfully at the camera, that sort of thing, its incredibly effective and has wow impact - and a great deal of that is down to the high technology and the extraordinary sense of presense that it brings.

The brand is developing a good reputation - its latest 14mm & 85mm offerings have been well rated. Apart from excellent resolution the build is quality with big solid focus rings and the advantage of an 'A' setting for AE control on Pentax.

10mm? For me that may be a bit wide for comfort - I wouldn't want to invest in a lens purely for novelty effects. But if the view is not too distorted and there's high IQ right to the edges it could be a good addition.

Its all part of the rich tapestry that is Pentax

Is that 'photography without end', or 'argument without photography' ...

I can understand that - if you relate it to software processes on a computer, distortion corrections would be one of the longer 'filter' applications in terms of the time it takes to 'do its stuff' after clicking OK. Noise reduction also, assuming its being written into a pixel layer, which is what is happening in both these cases on the camera. Even in RAW, whilst the settings are recorded in the file, the processing still has to be carried out and applied to the JPEG preview for LCD screen display.

On the K7 I have found that these features, when active, do not slow down the burst shooting rate, so I can fire away. But they do add to the time its takes to display the image (or the last image in a burst) on the LCD display. This isn't a problem if you are just shooting with the viewfinder and the settings are already made - but it can slow you down if you're relying on checking the preview image to assess your settings and reshoot.

For JPEGs you're stuck with it if the corrections are needed - I wouldn't want to carry out these sorts of edits on a JPEG file ideally. But if its RAW then they can be switched off, it can all be done on the computer later.

Thats more even The light source appears to be from above, as a bit harsh across the top of the guitar body - do you have the option to diffuse the light somehow - this might also spread it out a bit more softy.

I'm assuming you're experimenting here with some new gear - so far so good! What is the lighting equipment you are using?

I'm not so sure ... there's many similarities and indeed identical aspects between the film & digital SLR - and no question that the system remained compatable - so by my definitions in this context, a desire for a digital SLR built on the Pentax system would not have been 'irrelevant' to Pentax users.

A better film equivalent example would be the desire for, say, much greater quality and resolution, but within the restraints of a very compact camera system - where the quality limits of the film type that could actually fit into this compact system had already been reached, or in any case, the control was only in the hands of the film maker, not the camera maker. Here again, the discussions would be irrelevant to the camera users - their only choice would be to change camera systems to a larger format.

I do not believe a software upgrade could make the sensor in a Canon DSLR shake. This particular example I am using is only that, an example, of different and incompatable technologies, to comment on where a degree of irrelevance can enter comparisons between brands. The origin of this was John's comment that once 'you've paid your money' (my interpretation - 'once you're committed financially, and have invested in a single system and learnt it and absorbed its operation') then certain discussions and desires are 'irrelavent'.

So, by example, I am saying that the Pentax sensor shake system is long established - there is now a desire for images to not be blurred by aa filtering if not required - Pentax's technology allows a new special solution built on top of the existing shake technology. It is relevant, and realistic, because it can be economically implemented into a single camera model - anyone can buy it and immediately benefit with all their lenses - its an instant 'system upgrade'.

Canon on the other hand, with 'in'lens' optical element image stabilisation, are clearly not in the same position - it is impossible to implement an 'aa filter simulator' by means of the image stabilisation system that could apply to the whole system, would be economic or realistic. So for their forum members to look at the K3 and start to request it from Canon - well, those discussions could fairly be termed 'irrelevant' to the Canon system ... because the desire is out of sync with the natural evolution of the system - it they needed that feature so much, they would be better advised to buy the K3.

The same principal would apply to some discussions on here - if it was out of sync with the natural evolution of the Pentax system,then likely also uneconomic - and irrelevant .....

The example I gave has a logic doesn't it - it should be fairly clear ... the new K3 'aa filter simulator' is built on top of, and depends on, the long existing sensor shake system - its an extension to that fullfilling a need. The Canon equivilent would be to redesign the optical image stabilisation system in every IS lens .... it would only be implemented in new lens, it would be massively uneconomic, and would not apply to thousands of old lenses. Clearly the Pentax option is the more realistic. For Canon people it would be a dream, and irrelavent.

But if you do stretch these things beyond such limits, into the realms of the unrealistic, then it just becomes a case of 'its not Pentax'.

I also said that feedback & 'wishlists' had led to positive new developments - but these tend to be what is 'in sync with the design or natural evolution' of the models ... an example would be the aa filter simulator, which depends on and is built upon the existing 'sensor shake' system.

Now if Canon users on their forum started to demand the same moire reduction feature on their cameras, and cited the K3 as an example, that would be 'out of sync' with the natural development of their cameras, so the demand is not really positive, and in a similar way it would seem reasonable for their forum to restrict that - they would of course be better advised to buy a K3 and a range of compatible lenses