Could this image possibly have been captured on Green mode??? I'm thinking not - the exposure seems very well balanced. Unless it was a PS blending of sky / ground I can't see how a single uncontrolled frame could have created this.

It would seem the metering has been optimised to the mid to brighter tones - I don't think you'd have that control in green mode would you. You'd need at least AF-L I think before recomposing?

And if it was a PS blend, then no Green mode either - you'd need exposure compensation to shoot the different frames.

I think there's more 'thinking' here than the camera can do

Digital compacts ... now thats a strange thing now. They seem to be increasingly becoming wedged out of the market, at least in their basic form. Isn't that whats supposed to have done in Jessops?

I know Pentax have made some specialized items in this range, but it seems the future here might be a merging of the smaller gadgets the masses now use. I was reading in a computer mag reviews of 2 Android compacts - mid-range cameras (although with a wide zoom range and 16mp) but with an Android interface on a big screen on the back (looks more like a smartphone from the back). The point of them apparently is a more seamless process in shooting pics, a quick edit and getting them onto social sites ASAP, plus storage and file management as well.

Could be the way to go, at least to revitalize that end of the market. Personally it doesn't interest me, and I'm not sure it is worthwhile for DSLRs .... maybe CSCs ? What do people think - do you want WiFi / 4G / Android etc on cameras?

Just a question really - is it true that on Pentax our AF performance is more camera body dependant due to the 'screw drive' system, more then other brands which would be more dependent on the lens mechanics?

Very good to see the birds so close up living their lives doing as they do. Great observations. Were you far enough away that they were unaware of you or was there any hiding needed ?

I promised a RawTherapee update on batch processing, and here it is. I have to say I am extremely impressed with the batch work I have been doing. So far I've been dividing my party shots into groups of about 5-8 which are similar in lighting balance and just processing those, but I know now I can proceed with confidence on much larger batches.

Briefly, the process goes like this .... I move the DNGs to a dedicated folder, then use the RT browser tab to view those. I open one in the editor and work through it applying the adjustments - I have found these of such high quality (especially NR & sharpening) that I have elimiated my usual 16bit TIFF output, and I'm just going straight for max quality JPEGs on the batch run.

Once the settings are made on the first photo you choose 'save profile' and give it a name. Back in the browser you select all the similar shots for that run, right click and choose your named profile which is then applied to all the selected shots. One by one you see the thumbnails get altered and can spot any that don't look OK and deselect it.

Then another right click, choose 'send to queue', then in the queue tab you set up your output options (ie JPEG, quality level, algorithm quality, save to folder), then click 'start processing'. It is slow - about 1 - 1.5 mins per shot, but it is worth the wait! Fantastic results, its saving me a load of time and I'm going to have masses more high quality images prepared than I could ever have got from my usual 'optimised' (ie individual in multiple programs) workflow

Regarding name 'rebadging', is it not the case that Ricoh would be better known (amongst the 'general public') for office machinery, and Pentax for cameras - although I wonder if it would be more commonly recalled only by people who remember it from the 'film days' ?(hate that!)

It would seem a good strategy to try and build on that historical knowledge in selling new cameras from now on.

Me neither ... how many 'stops' of help are we supposed to get from the shake reduction at these sort of speeds ? Is it two or three max ?

I know its hard to compare when there are variables of sharpening and resizing to consider, and I've no doubt about the abilities of the FA zoom - as John has said, it was clearly a premium product.

I was really raising the question of whether even cheaper DA equivalents are superior on todays DSLRs, due to being digitally 'optimised' and with newer coatings and other modern refinements ? Or, of course, whether the older items stand up and still offer top quality results now.

Hey, about the DOF preview - I don't use it now either, but the option to change the function to 'Digital Preview' is much more useful.

This is a menu item, and then when you pull the lever over to the position the camera takes a shot and holds it on the LCD (not saved to SD card). You can choose in the menu to have a histogram (useful) or bright/dark areas, plus you can play around with WB and custom image settings and see the effects immediately on the screen.

A good way to fine tune things before continuing and taking actual saved shots.

I use the windows version for a limited range of image adjustments. Its very good at detailing and clarity-type work, and the vibrance adjustments and white balance control work well.

But its purely RAW adjustments tab is very limited. The OP referred to using much more sophisticated options, so whilst Lightzone is a useful addition for targeted things, I don't think it can fulfil the role of a comprehensive RAW converter program.