You want to be sure your metering approach is correct to start with - the conditions you describe suggest there is high contrast in the scenes, with the brighter tones in the upper regions. If too much of the lower areas of the frame are dark (eg deep shadow areas) then the meter is seeing too much of this, resulting in overexposure.

Firstly, ensure you're using full matrix metering to allow the camera to take greater account of the bright areas. You will get increased effect also if you tilt the camera up a bit to let it 'see' more brighter areas - then use the exposure lock button (*) to hold this setting - move the camera back down to your intended composition and shoot.

This will result in darker images, & hopefully no blown highs. If you're shooting JPEG you'll get some benefit from the automatic dynamic range compression that this format entails - but if its not enough (for example you now find your shadows are too dark) then I'd make use of the 'shadow correction' feature, if your camera has it.

I think this approach of metering more for your highlights will work better than just applying 'highlight correction', which is after all just an in-camera software process. So is the shadow correction of course, but modern Pentax cameras are very good at recording and boosting shadow detail.

I see John's point as referring mainly to buyers of a camera system - be that DSLR or CSC type ... any that involve an ongoing 'commitment', mainly financially but also in terms of operating quirks and features. For the vast majority of 'us' (ie 'enthusiasts' or semi-Pros) that commitment is very real. There are very few who could afford to maintain 2 separate sytems, even if they had a purpose for that.

So once 'committed', the reality is that the alternatives are irrelavent. I have a vague interest in other cameras, and flick through magazines sometimes reading reviews or specs on models from other makers - but they are irrelavent to me, because my lenses won't fit on any of them

I accept this is only a comfortable position if your current gear provides all that you need - but any extra needs for the 'committed' have to be seriously weighed up and balanced with the financial implications of breaking that commitment. I'm happy with what my current gear provides, but that doesn't mean I'm not curious about future possibilities and what it may add for me - that's why I keep questioning about what we can expect out of a new Pentax 'FF' model when it comes. Will mentioned above smaller DOF more easily to add to the list we already have.

But looking at my bank accounts for now .... its all a bit irrelevant

Thanks Andrew, I'm glad my eyes don't need testing after all

I don't really see the need for such a 'defense' here against my observation ... nothing about it is an any way a comment on the photographer's ability, and he could not have done anything about it when shooting anyway. I can only comment on what I see, and I can only assume that others are just not looking that closely

This is really a matter of final tidying up & presentation - how important it is to the photographer will depend on the final output size. I know it could not be printed very large without being a problem, and I would add to that the fine luminance noise still present across the entire sky.

I only flag up matters like this that may affect final presentation to alert the photographer to something that may have been easily missed in preparing the shot initially. I myself would always greatly apprectiate the extra eyes honing in ,and I believe the photographer here most likely does too. But I could easily just leave it out, and add something more easily ... perhaps this is better ..'Another cracker Alan '.

But I don't think that's what he needs.

I'm glad to hear it - we're not seeing many K7 images on here now - its hardly an old camera really, and not even that different to the most recent models in terms of its features and controls. Looks like you & I, and maybe only a few others, will have to hold the fort

We can see those, sure, but the praise for them is rather indistinct. I appreciate people recognizing qualities & a 'feel' such as that of the old CCD models. The problem for those without the cameras is to understand how these rather vague aspects will translate onto and relate to our own shots specifically.

Thats why I asked if it was possible to articulate what we might look forward to in a future Pentax 'FF' DSLR (apart from the obvious extra cropping, larger prints and wide angle capacities). But so far I'm not hearing anything at all clear.

We can see those, sure, but the praise for them is rather indistinct. I appreciate people recognizing qualities & a 'feel' such as that of the old CCD models. The problem for those without the cameras is to understand how these rather vague aspects will translate onto and relate to our own shots specifically.

Thats why I asked if it was possible to articulate what we might look forward to in a future Pentax 'FF' DSLR (apart from the obvious extra cropping, larger prints and wide angle capacities). But so far I'm not hearing anything at all clear.

Thats clear to see, a good choice to upgrade then. Do you still use the K7?

No, I see it again on the laptop - the bands are there, but actually magenta in cast. Its not a major issue small, but I'm sure Alan will deal with it if its a requirement.

No, you wouldn't need a Samyang TS on a Horseman

For city-scapes you can't beat the city Views from the central bridges can be rewarding in the right light, usually early morning or late afternoon at the moment, and of course there's plenty of architectural potential in the city and Canary Wharf areas. The top of Greenwich Park is a good longer-distance viewpoint, as is that hill on Hampstead Heath near Hampstead station - can't remember what its called?? plus the one closer in nearer to Swiss Cottage - Primrose Hill I think.