No software noise defaults would be expected to deal with such extreme high iso. It is not unexpected that you`d need much higher corrections. Perhaps your results are not unexpected either?

I guess its mosty static scenes where the true representation of extreme shadows and highlights is of importance. Most 'non-static' scenes would presumably consist more of a 'subject' and 'background', where the exposure bias would be on the subject and aspects of the 'background' DR are easily sacrificed. I'm generalising a lot though

The problem I'm found when correcting verticals, especially if they affect both sides of the image, is that you only seem to be able to get one side or the other right. I'm assuming this programme is more sophisticated than that and corrects both equally?

Also, do you know if it can sort out barrel distortions, like I'd get on my Samyang 14mm if shooting buildings?

Thanks for sharing this Steven, I'm looking forward to seeing some more of your work with it.

I suppose thats a good way to think about it - if they've managed to squeese the extra pixels into the same space without losing anything in the process, thats actually an advance in itself

But (especially if Smeggy is still looking) I should say here and now that I really only have the slightest passing and cursory interest in the differences in noise performance between the K5 & K3 - no, thats not right - really no interest at all in the differences ....

I'm sure everyone else will be glad about that !

Since the K7 and through the K5 varients there has been an in-camera HDR feature, which takes 3 individual exposures and combines them to produce a single JPEG. The few times I have tried it it has been very effective - here's one example of mine from the PU Gallery ...link

The inclusion of this option suggests that the camera designers did see some need for capturing a DR range greater than the sensor could manage. But this is common to all cameras, its just that the 'barrier' is higher on some models. Indeed, I recently read a review of the D800, and it also has the same HDR JPEG output function, so again the makers of that camera saw the need as well.

The only barrier I can identify would be the point when no possible scene would require any type of HDR (either in camera or computer) processing in order to be captured faithfully by a camera sensor. I think it is fair to say we are a long way from that point at present.

That 'Movie SR' sounds a bit like computer software type stabilising functions. I use Sony Vegas Platinum and tried the stabiliser function, but wasn't happy with it due to the significant crop it applies - you have no control over this or the amount of stabilising (although I guess you might in the 'Pro' version)?

The sensor shake reduction on the K7 during video is brilliantly effective I find - with the 14mm Samyang the effect is like floating on air. I have not been aware of sensor noise being recorded, although I often use a hotshoe mic. The K30 system sounds like a backwards step.

I know this was raised before - do we know yet if the K3 is this digital type SR (like k30) or the sensor shift kind like th K7 / K5 series?

I like the upright compositions which make the most of the tree heights in both scenes. The second one looks more pleasing colour-wise with nice warm tones, and good placement of the people walking away.

The first looks to me to have some magenta / reddy tones on the tree trunks and stone wall which doesn't look quite right.

Also the lampost is squeezed right up to against the first tree behind it - I think it would look better if there was some more space here.

The last river one is very effective - nice lead in across the rocks towards the bank on the far side, which is well exposed allowing the eye to wander around through the trees.

I don't think you got any decent light for the mountain ones by the looks of it, which was a pity.

So, its possible that what some of those who jumped ship really needed was in fact a bigger looking camera that their clients (who don't understand the technical differences between sensor sizes, photosites and megapixels) would easily identify at a glance as a proper professional grade model, which must have cost a huge amount and therefore they won't mind paying the photographer a high fee.

I'm starting to lose the plot now . What I'm not really understanding is this ... does the version 'exported' (ie saved as) from LR look the same within LR as it does in the other viewers or Picassa? Or does it look different after exporting (in the other viewers etc) than it did when still displayed in LR?

Also, the 2nd of your original versions - (whicht I see as having a green cast) - is that unprocessed, straight from the camera?

Maybe your camera settings are applying the green cast (check the White Balance fine tuning and also the Custom Image Settings 'Hue' slider). And then maybe LR is correcting for this green cast, which is giving the magenta that you tried to reduce ???