I agree that many of the special features and finer controls available on our top-spec models would be lost in the marketing stampede and not even understood at the point of sale, which is a pity, as Pentax certainly should keep competing on its reputation for ergonomics, ease of use and handling etc.

The problem is that much of the detail of this is lost to many - 'not a priority'. Even here, I'm certainly in a minority in trying to highlight some of the key customisations available on the DSLRs and how they can help in the field for specific shooting situations - (eg: the reaction to my 'checklist' was almost entirely dismissive, yet it was nothing but an attempt to provoke more thinking on the range of options contained in the menus and controls - specific options on the cameras that are, yes, unique to Pentax in the specific manner of their presentation, so something to be shouted about I'd have thought).

So I disagree that a lot of this stuff is unnecessary - hardly used, Ok, but worth exploring more to spread understanding of its practical application. I only hope that the next generation continues to offer the best of the handling features and control customisation options of the K7 / K5 series.

These modern-day social media integration features will surely be more relavant to the compact & CSC sector than DSLRs? There's a clear move taking place in these more compact models to combine these smart-phone aspects in a camera device that offers better IQ and control than than can squeezed out of a phone.

Do we really imagine that DSLR users will be looking for Android, facebook apps etc on their next models?

This is not a Pentax lens. Am I missing a joke

This is all very new to us here - we haven't yet had the chance to run any serious comparitive tests between the different coloured bodies

Good choice of camera though! I know camera shops are fewer are farer between now, but do you have PC World ? Some of their stores do stock K30's, probably black, but it gives you a feel and chance to try it out a bit. It should be easy to decide on colour from pictures online once you know the camera body.

But anyway, I think it might be the case that the colours are only available by special order? Check the Ricoh / Pentax website.

Good luck finding your camera!

Sorry, don't understand LMAO . The dramatic language has a function - its only referring to those very localised areas - not 'catastrophic' to the image as a whole (although at large sizes IMO it would make it unusable), but rather 'catastrophic' to the integrity of the subject texture, colour and detail on those areas.

It only takes a little closer look to see - the top panel of the black lamp in the foreground, but more so on the stone wall rising to the left of the dome, and the sandy coloured underhang below the roof of the building on the left.

But the only thing that is of interest here is whether the noise on the patterned textures is interacting with moire causing an exaggeration of either - and of course the main question, whether moire is a concern on artitectural shots of this nature.

It shouldn't be about anyone defending their purchase, nor is it about anyone's skills and or creativity - it is just about what is visible for inspection on an image shot with the camera. David's photo has been put up as an example, and I wanted to focus on that. David, its a good shot well captured - what is interesting though is the quite catastrophic noise in those areas I referred to before.

I believe there are some signs of a layering type pattern (not unlike common moire effect) to the colour noise, and apparently repeating patterns in the surface textures of the subject here. But the noise needs to be eliminated before any moire can be identified clearly IMO.

The real questions here are - does moire & noise interact in any way to exaggerate either issue, and is traditional colour noise removal in any way effective where moire is also present?

I only raise these because the shot, as taken on a K5IIs, would not normally be at risk of high noise under the lighting conditions would it? I don't know the ISO, but these cameras should perform better I'd have thought up to a high ISO level.

And lets put to rest the 'jaggies' and compression thing - I don't think anyone is seeing or referring to this compression effect - I doubt that it is occurring on any of the images that are being referred to as the amount of compression would need to be very high. And am I right in saying that jpeg compression does not increase the density of colour noise that is visible?

When I did my comparison tests (K5II vs 's') there was one small item that was completely swamped in moire effect on the 's' image, and the 'non-s' version had none of it at all - a clear difference on a small item with a ribbed & repeated texture. This was the effect of the aa filter removal.

It makes sense to explore the circumstances in which that effect is likely to occur, so that everyone can make their own judgement and choice based on what and how they shoot - it is probably a combination of certain textures with repeating pattern and particular lighting effects, and / or the angles of view etc etc. I imagine there will always be an element of unpredictability to it.

This exploration should be separate from the matter of whether individual users feel there is any issue with moire in their own images. It is either there or not, true, but the significance of it will vary from person to person. Some will be content to accept it, remove it if possible, or even not look for it. Others will take a more detailed approach.

Looking at David's Genoa image, what I can say firstly is that it does not seem to have been cleaned up at all in terms of colour noise reduction. Most areas contain significant colour noise patterns, including the OOF zones on the dome and patterned wall to the left, which are swamped in blue & yellow noise. Even the in-focus foreground, the black areas of the sign for example, are covered in a pinky noise effect. The sky is speckled with fine luminance noise also. The yellow brickwork on the left side is riddled with red / yellow & blue noise also.

David, none of this is any critisism of you or your shot artistically! Its just an example we have in front of us - this noise issue would be fairly easy to clean up, its just a technical matter.

Those OOF areas that Algi refers to do have repeating patterns in the textures, and the noise layout does appear to be layered - IMO it would be better to consider the image after the significant colour noise was eliminated, to see what was underneath in order to judge if moire was an issue.

Can you post a shot as well as the shooting data - aperture, shutter speed, ISO. Also what auto exposure mode were you using (Av, Tv, Tav M etc)? This info should help us help

It is possible isn't it? I mean, the '8x' extra power would only apply to the narrow field of view area covered by the long zoom - ie 8x more power at that distance for that particular narrow field of view than you would get at that exact spot without any narrowing of the beam.

This is the same principle with flash head zooms - they 'zoom' to reduce the beam coverage to match the field of view of the long lens, and you don't need as much power then for correct flash illumination - recycle times are shorter and batteries last longer. Assuming that the built-in unit will fire at full power it is possible that the effects of concentrating the beam in such a way would be equivilent to '8x' the total power, is is not?

I understood he was saying that the DNGs on his computer had 'turned into PEF's', not that the camera had started to shoot PEF's?? iangilmore, can you clarify this please.