I don't see any particular issue with the general sharpness myself. What I don't like is the really very dark shadows, basically black, which looks a bit ugly IMO - eg: the left foreground in the first one, plus the shadow sides of tree trunks and the deep shadow parts under the trees generally.

I think they would all benefit from a bit of shadow 'lifting' - just be careful to balance that as you go with some 'low tone contrast' so it doesn't end up going a washed out grey.

If these were camera jpegs then it may be good to have shadow correction activated, even just the lowest setting. But if they were raw there shouldn't be any problem in pulling the blacks up a bit.

One of the points of Pentax is good ergonomics - for me that means the Camera & Grip combination.

Its always going to be a personal thing of course. I feel there are both handling and added control advantages - I'm a grip guy, will always be a grip guy I guess .

This sort of thing comes down to how the muscles are conditioned and 'programmed'. For me, the comfort and consistency in control comes from using the buttons & dials on the grip in portrait 'mode' with the hand in very much the same position as in 'landscape' with the body controls. The actual flipping of the camera over from one to the other is very quick and intuitive because of the extra tactile sense and surface contact you have with grip, and the hand just tightens back into the same position once the grip is vertical and the controls are right under your fingers again.

I find it very unatural to pull the camera left with the right wrist bending down to try and keep the fingers on the buttons. But then, thats the way I've been programmed.

Yes, thats right, but for me its not just about keeping the camera more steady, its a dynamic aid as well. The extra contact surface with the hands helps with control in moving the camera around and in precise framing handheld. And it is very secure and quick to flick into portratit and back again with all the buttons in the same places feeling - wise.

This is a very strongly individual choice. 'Balance' ? - well what is meant by this I think is that if the COG is forwards (like when using a bigger / longer lens) the more surface area for your hands to make contact with the easier it is to counteract that pull and keep and good tactile sense of the camera body.

For me the grip is a permanent fixture - my senses have adapted so much to it that the K7 feels silly and unsubstantial without it. I do a lot of vertical shooting and I find it a great advantage for this, much easier to move the camera left and right with the wrist in a neutral position, and the essential buttons are right there. The additional battery options and extra power it provides is just an added bonus for me - the main thing is the solidity and extra handling finess and control it provides.


If I could have a Pentax DSLR in future that had a body size equivilent to the K7 plus grip, all in one unit with the controls and extra battery spaces included, I'd be very happy.

Its a familiar sounding consideration to me, if limiting a choice purely to sensor noise performance - where it most counts is not how much correction is required for noise removal, but more importantly the effects on quality of the required detail and micro-contrast restoration. It is reasonable to expect that the additional pixel data in the K3 images will provide an advantage in this area, in a similar way that the K5IIs (without aa filter blurring) did over the filtered images.

So it probably comes down again to an individuals processing approaches and intended output sizes. As I saw in my K5II testing, the advantage of the higher 'resolution' was reduced degradations and breakup of textures in the smoother areas of the image - skin tones, and plain surfaces for example. This better response to detailing input in these areas of the image allowed greater overall 'sharpening', especially of the fine edge type, and so a larger and higher quality final output could be made that retained a crisp and clean look.

Is it not right to expect the additional pixel data from the K3 to provide this kind of benefit also ?

I saw over on the other forum (where your tests have been linked to Barry), and someones saying that the differences you report are down to different exposures due to different shutter speeds and slightly different metering ?? This seems to have been accepted by some there.

Looking around there, its a real mixed bag of pros & cons being reported from the first users.

Overall the main consensus seems to be that handling & ergonomics are improved - some like the new AF controls and some don't, but also the speed of the processor has been commented on consistently - it apparently works much faster in applying 'in'camera' processes like CA / Distortion / NR, and the write speeds in bursts are quicker. And one member said that you can see individal images appearing on the LCD during bursts. All sounds like very good news for any fast shooters.

Yes, bulb is the the way to go if you want to capture bursts of fireworks over, say, a 10 - 30 second period. I think at night you can usually just set ISO 100 and f11 and it usually works out OK. Click open the shutter just before they start and leave it open. If there's a pause you can cover the lens with a piece of card or something gently to prevent the background from brightening up too much. Remove the card when the next burst of fireworks starts up.

Alastair, I think your first one here is amazing - great colours, and yes, it is interesting to see the ground where the fireworks are coming from in the 2nd.

I think the saturation increase works well on your 3rd one (the rocky bay and grass), but perhaps is a bit overdone on the seaside street one, which is a rather muted toned scene. You should really straighten the horizon on the bay one also.

I like the new Cathedral shot with the Rose window nicely placed. Perhaps you could reduce the warm cast on the higher stonework a bit, which is caused by the tungsten lamps shining upwards.

But its not just about how much noise is visible at capture - what's more important is how the images holds up under good and effective noise reuction processing. This is not just about eliminating the noise, the second stage of that is the detail restoration.

It doesn't matter what the numerical figure is on the noise reduction sliders - what matters is how the image responds to the compensatory 'micro-contrast' boosting at different levels to bring the important detail back.

It may be the case that the additional pixels in the K3 images will in fact help in this process and give the advantage.

Yes, the fine tuning is an advantage - what I was suggesting above is that often that fine tuning may in reality need to be wider or longer than the lens can provide, and so we take the compromise if unable to move position.

Which brings us back to the initial question - most of us will surely need an extended range at each end, and it may well be that quality primes could provide that best.