Now seeing that screenshot above, for the second part of the question, I think you click on the button 'Development' for the conversion (ie'save as') options.

I understand the attraction to the idea of a single 'superzoom'. This effectively makes the DSLR more like a 'bridge' type camera, which doesn't allow different lenses.

Practical, yes, but ultimately limiting and a compromise in quality and flexibility terms. It may seem like a chore to have to change lenses, and sometimes yes, it might take time when you just want to keep shooting. But it is the option to use the exact right lens for the type of shot that can make DSLR work such a special thing

But how lucky we are now to have all these extra electronic aids and alternative techniques to employ ! Even without using any lens scales, my focussing is more accurate now on Pentax than ever before, even at 14mm, and I can try different methods depending on the type of scene and lighting levels.

Am I right to presume that process only works if you have originally formatted the card in the K5, and then keep using the card only on a K5?

I will only comment on the Save issue, as I'm not familiar that that version - but it is an earlier version I think, so is likely to be 32bit.

I believe that Silkypix use the term 'develop' when carrying out the conversion from RAW to a pixel based image file. Try looking on the toolbar or in the menus for the function 'develop' instead of 'Save As'.

I have always copied from SD card (using fitted card reader), left the images on the card until I've had the time to carry out an extra backup process (usually the DNGs and any video files onto DL DVDs).

Then I format in the camera. Its always worked OK, and I swap the cards around between the K7 and another bridge camera we use.

But its always good to think of other ways, so I dived into the Sandisk website and found the following page, covering the formatting of their SD cards on computer operating systems .. link

There's similar instructions for all of their range, and they give a fair bit of guidance on the functionality of the various 'FAT' systems and the formatting options, so it seems reasonable to believe that if the manufacturers are offering such instructions then the process must be sound.

Clearly, this is from a card point of view, not a camera point of view. The question remains on what differences there might be between the OS and in camera formatting processes. I know that historically there has been the guidance in the 'literature' about in camera formatting, but maybe as time and technology has moved on it could be updated?

I have found that because of using the two different cameras, I can't see on one camera what was shot on the other, so I just know the card came from the other camera and, and its convenient to just format in the camera. But it would be good to know more about the differences and wider pros & cons.

Just to put a Pentax-specific practical slant to this, here is my method for eyeballing focus accurately. This is most useful perhaps for wider angles and tripod work, and in lighting conditions when it is hard to see your focus point clearly through the viewfinder.

Firstly I frame up the scene using through the viewfinder and get the composition set. I mostly use my 14mm or 28mm primes, so its manual focus, which I find best for this type of photography anyway. Set an appropriate aperture for a maximum DOF using hyperfocal-type technique (depends on the distances in the scene).

You can get the focus near enough through the viewfinder, but for fine tuning I press LV (Live View), then the Info button - this zooms in 6x, and using the 4-way controller I move the little green square down to an object that is about 1/3rd into the scene, an approximate hyperfocal distance. Then I fine tune the manual focus, back and forth until I see its as sharp as possible.

Leave it there, press LV to come out of Live View, and you're ready to shoot!

[quote:3496ace15f="johnriley" ]A 14mm is a specialised lens though Nigel. A 55-300mm isn't. If we want pictures of birds or sporting events, we'll need the reach.

Looking at your lens list, would it be fair to say you're more of a wide angle to standard lens photographer?[/quote]Yes, I am for sure. As I said earlier, after getting the K7 and 18-55 I mostly found myself wanting to step back to 'get it all in'. I agree there are aspects of working with a 14mm that are 'specialised', but at the same time, for me, I would see shooting birds at 300mm as fairly 'specialised' as well! (I imagine the results would be rather specialised as well )

But of course, those sort of shots are not my interest, not the wildlife itself nor the actual images, so I'm not motivated by it and don't see the need for the focal lengths.

So it really comes back to an individuals photographic need then. My main point is that we should avoid labelling any particular lens as an 'obvious choice' without considering an individuals desire for specific shots.

Maybe the OP could throw us a line on this one? Did you have any particular type of shots, subjects or locations you would really like to capture?

Hey, give it time... surely one day we'll find something to disagree on even more than a zoom lens !

I'm not convinced there's any value in having 'no overlap' in focal lengths in a lens collection, unless you are a camera maker selling a twin lens kit - then it may seem persuasive. I have 'gaps' in my collection, and some overlaps. The gaps never seem to cause a problem. I don't think we need to have every focal length covered... let me think of one we don't need ... , I know, 59mm, we don't need that one, never going to need it. Maybe also 176mm ... will never use that.

Also, if its good to avoid overlaps, would you therefore disagree with those here who are advocating a 17-70, or 18-135? Would be a waste in some respects wouldn't they?

Its good that the 55-300 has its defenders, but it misses the point I think. I could give similar praise and recommendation to a 14mm, but I wouldn't say it was an 'obvious' choice for a 2nd lens, unless there was a clearly identified need for such a focal length.

It was probably you who wrote one of those magazine articles John !

I was just questioning any assumption that for a person starting out, who has only got an 18-55 so far, that the next 'obvious' choice was a lens with the quite extraordinary length of 55-300 ('ff' field of view equivalent of 400 at the long end) .

I wouldn't want anyone to assume that was necessary for them without thinking about other options, and considering an individuals needs and wishes for their photography.

In my case, I found myself stepping backwards much more than trying to reach forward, so the 14mm prime I have was the obvious choice (budget / quality ratio being considered).