As I mentioned earlier, the reason I regard it as moire is because of the way the colours come and go as the textures change - noise would remain consistent across areas of the same colour tone. The jury's out though! Its interesting that the noise reduction had effect - I imagine it can deal with moire to an extent, in that it is a blurring function?

I do think its good to explore and become aware of potential subjects to be wary of - I think its much more than just the old 'knitting catalogue' joke! It will not worry anyone until they find patches of it ruining bits of their images, in areas they could never have noticed on the camera LCD.

Maybe there should be in a firmware update for an 'aa filter simulator bracketing' setting ! Now that would keep me awake at night !

Nothing I am saying is anything to do with the photography artistically or the photographers ability here. I would be very pleased to have taken them as well I believe he has posted them as very early examples from the new K3, with a view to some examination of them.

My interest here is not to be critical - not of the camera or photographer - the moire would be there the same for anyone pressing the shutter with the camera settings as they were. I'm interested in raising discussion about the new considerations we have now about moire risk, and the controls available to manage it.

No !! Never !! I won't hear of it ! Not the images, the exciting bit is all the settings & things to fiddle with

Actually, yes John, we do see these things differently. I see most features & controls as ways of optimising the camera specifically for each unique style or genre, or the conditions at the time. They are things to be reconsidered every time the camera is taken out.

So I'm always interested in the ease of use, access and intuitivness of such things, and so I see a camera's 'quality' in these terms to an extent.

Its a big change from the setup thats been in place since the K7 in May 2009 - inevitable that many things will need 're-programming' for users of the K7 / K5 series moving on.

The extra AF complexity and range of options presents new challenges I'd think - both in the practical physical operation in changing shooting situations, and new decisions concerning extra continuous modes and the number of points to have active in an 'array' - all taking time and thought prior to shooting.

The aa filter simulator is a whole new thing too - until recently we had no choice at all. Then with the K5II / s models we had one choice - and it had to be made when buying the camera. Now with the K3 we have a new choice - and we need to make it every time the camera is turned on!

Early adopters - could you tell us how the aa filter simulator is controlled, and is it easy and quick to access?

Well there's no way to assess the effectiveness of the aa filter system here at all - because the shot was taken with it off! We would need a comparison shot exactly the same but with the simulator on to be able to determine anything.

No doubt there will in time become available examples for testing.

The moire defect is very much there to see on top of the penguins head - it seems to be confined to areas where the fine and repeating feather textures are at their most dense and the patterns are more consistent. I notice that in various patches around the face where the feathers are flattened a bit, or the fine repeating pattern is broken up with feathers squashed or maybe slightly damp, that the colour defects disappear and a pure black is retained.

If I was seeing normal colour noise there would be no reason for it to come and go just because texture patterns changed - it would remain the same across any tones of the same 'blackness', and the yellows / blues would be like two independent overlays, not like Vaards 'rainbow' as we see here with finely alternating specks of colour.

Its a very new thing, so general knowledge is helpful, but we have very Pentax-specific moire management options now to consider.

I would be cautious in dismissing the 'issue' for all but a very limited range of textures, or only for extreme enlargements (as suggested above). I have seen enough examples of it in quite unexpected places for it to be an ongoing concern.

I also doubt that Pentax would have invested so much effort into their revolutionary new system to reduce moire, if there was not a very good reason to do so.

What is significant for us Pentax people is firstly to learn more about moire effects and the probability of them affecting our images now. This probability is higher for users of the K5IIs and users of the K3 with the 'simulator' off, than for users of other fairly recent models.

Secondly, we need to learn about whether the effect of the K3 'simulator' is identical to a physical 'aa' filter, or if there are subtle differences in how it works on moire, or the extent to which it will reduce it.

Bird photographers may have to be wary. Yes, the crop of the penguin here does display a 'rainbow' as Vaards terms it. It does appear to be a repeating pattern of interference, different to colour noise, so I would agree it is a moire defect.

And on such an important part of the photo (the surface texture of the main subject) then it is significant. How much of a problem will depend on the size of the output and whether it will be looked at in detail. But its not something I would be happy with myself.

The obvious question is whether or not the simulator was active or not for the shot - and if not, then what would it's effect have been if active?

Sorry, didn't see it was a crop! Looks fine then

Very obvious high detail on the house in the first one, similar to the in-focus zones in David Storms examples (at Stokesay).

The 2nd here doesn't quite look fully nailed with the focus, although you'd have thought there would have been something for one of the 27 points to latch onto Maybe its an adjustment issue?

Looking good David, can see very good detail there. I'm assuming the 'aa filter simulator' was off? (We really do need something better to call that!)