I think the image quality could be better assessed in colour. Could you give us a colour version as well ?

From what I can see (assuming you haven't done any noise reduction in software), the noise levels are well controlled - was there NR active on the camera?

It looks to me like you could have got away with at least another 'stop' or two of higher ISO, which would have been beneficial for shutter speed, which really needed to be faster IMO for better clarity.

I have no doubt the better FA units are very attractive and good value. Those examples posted are very good of course, but don't seem to have that final bit of punch and clarity that I have seen from DA equivalents. Also, in the 3rd (the flower with petals) there seems to be a fair bit of CA (purple fringing type) - this is a bit of an issue with my two A series lenses also.

Is it not the case that the newer DA examples would be better corrected on digital to reduce this type of aberration?

You provide a welcome breath of fresh air . Thanks for seeing things in such a balanced way, and your ideas have provided the opportunity to express how the different skills & thought processes can complement each other.

If you use a k7 / k5 series camera you could have a look at my 'Landscape Shooters Checklist' and let us know if you think the preparations and approach would work well for a considered landscape outing, or any alternatives .... link

I'm assuming you're shooting camera JPEGs ? If so, can you check your custom image settings and tell us what the 'sharpness' (plus fine sharpness 1 & 2 on the K5) sliders are set to on both cameras ?

I'm ruling out any processing parameter differences because you haven't said you're carrying out any work on the computer ?

I'd give it a go - I believe it can produce some very sharp edge to edge bokeh!

Yes, I've heard that f/8 is a pretty good one isn't it

I should be more clear, sorry. I have not been claiming that these finer options are only on Pentax - I honestly don't know, but no doubt there is a certain standardised range of custom controls on all similar cameras.

What I've been on about, and through the 'checklist' topic, are not functions that would directly affect the final image ... the pre-shoot set-up items I listed are really to do with optimising the camera for efficient use 'in the field', and to minimise the amount of re-adjustments or repeated re-setting of things during an extended shoot (eg a landscape expedition).

One example would be the menu item 'Memory' - here we choose which functions will be retained and restored following switching off (as we might do to change a lens or move a distance). My checklist gives certain items as active for landscape work in order to reduce extra setting work during the shoot - meaning more time to get on with the creative side of it. There will be different memory items to have on or off for another type of shoot.

I thought it would be helpful to discuss how our Pentax cameras provide this extra control and aid to efficient shooting, and that people would like to share alternatives and learn more about it.

But for practical photography these small DOF variations (in the image) would only be significant for macro type shots surely - the main purpose of selecting that extra half or third stop of brightness would generally be to gain the extra shutter speed - and as I said earlier, these days in most scenarios a quick flick up in ISO, or slight undereposure (to be recovered later on the PC) will do then same trick.

It surprises me too. I also feel a reluctance to talk details about what our cameras (OUR cameras specifically) are capable of right now.

Look at the 'Checklist' thread - it should have been clear to anyone who read the detail and thought about it that it was much less to do with a rigid approach to photography, and much more to do with considering the unique controls and customisations our PENTAX cameras offer, and how those features might aid and support different styles of photography.

Why the reluctance? Are we scared that discussing our cameras controls somehow distracts from the spontaneity and creative freedom that some claim comes on top of all? There's no need for that to be the case - the two go hand in hand, one supporting the other.

Can it really be true that lenses were created with exact focal lengths and maximum apertures just to be different from the competition? What would be the point in practice ? If you can't fit it on to your camera it remains academic - it doesn't reduce the 'system change dilemma' for anyone does it, and is not filling anyone's 'niche'.

In practice these maximum aperture differences are insignificant mostly - with digital now and flexible ISO control any required shutter speed can be obtained that way, and DOF differences would be minimal surely.

And single digit focal length differences (apart from small perspective differences) can be rendered equal with a few steps back or forwards.

There's the important aspects of build, feel and handling in this equipment as well - for usability these could be more valuable than the technical dimensions, and I think Pentax offers a lot in this respect.