Thought it might be worth to flag it up again.

Its all good advice, but I think strays a bit from what would really help the OP deal with the issue, which was dull images compared to a c...n G9.

If someone with a K-R had knowledge of the custom image menus and some suggested adjustments there to give that extra 'punch', I'm sure that would give very easy results.

Its a bit like AA filter / non AA filter comparisons - the real value of one over the other only shines through clearly under certain conditions. The consensus seems to be that the value to an individual of RAW over a camera JPEG would vary depending on what the image was destined to become and how the person intends to get there.

This thread started with a 'Disappointed' K-R user who was thinking of ditching it and going back to another brands compact (hasn't a G9 got a tiny sensor compared to APS-C?).

So are we ending up by saying that to get the same kind of 'finished' result without a lot of computer work, he should make adjustments to the custom image parameters via the lcd menus? I haven't ever seen the specs for the K-R, but what would be the specific items to adjust to achieve the same 'brilliant' results the OP reported he used to get from the other camera?

Of course. And there are plenty of other advantages for all types of user to a DSLR - the generally wider range of lenses and accessories would be the main thing I would say.

It does make me wish though that there was more knowledge shared and expressed specifically about the various 'scene modes', 'custom parameters' etc that each body contains, what they offer to different types of users and what are optimum settings.

OK, so the defaults are set up differently, which can give different initial impressions.

Do you think then that the fine controls available on the DSLRs (eg Sharpness, Fine Sharpness 1 + 2, high / low contrast etc, can be used to actually equalise the effects and produce results that wold match up to those that the smaller camera types generate by default?

I had my suspicions ... It is revealing though, your comment about DSLR output being 'intended' for further editing, as opposed to compacts I think you mentioned.

I think I get the point - could it be re-interpreted to mean that you see the larger amount of image data created by a DSLR as having greater latitude, greater potential, for further enhancement.

I think you have said before that you often shoot JPEGs which you then edit further in PS. Could it also be true that the DSLRs are not as optimised for JPEG output as the compacts or CSC types? As I said above, whilst we have quite a lot of fine control over JPEG output through the DSLR menus, there's surprisingly little discussion here about the differences, pros and cons etc between the different bodies in these respects.

Seems this may be an aspect of the cameras that is largely disregarded ?

Hi Stefan

I can see the point of the distinction you draw, but for those new to both programs it may be a bit simplistic ....

Don't forget that both programs use a dedicated version of Adobe Camera RAW to carry out the 'front end' RAW conversion (I do prefer the Silkypix term 'development'). So both have the capability for 'adjusting' RAW files.

Its fair to point out, as has been debated in the past, that the Lightroom ACR features are more extensive then the Elements version, certainly, as I understand it, in the area of selective and targeted adjustments.

But for general initial RAW conversion, then Elements has it covered. The photo can then be 'opened' into the Editor for 'Photoshop-style' editing, layers, blend modes, brushes etc etc, following which it is saved out into a new format, .psd, .tiff or .jpeg for example.

Its certainly too hot today for me to wade through that article

I think the simple answer to the question has got to be 'yes' - if its only that resolution & MTF stuff that's being considered. If a sensor can't actually 'resolve' the fine detail sent to it, then yes, its wasted. But if you need the expensive lens for its particular focal length, weight advantage or very wide aperture say, then you'll still get the benefit even on a lessor camera.

Surely the reality today though, with the amazing rapid advance (and reducing cost) of high resolution sensors, is actually getting our glass to match up ? The very best lenses are still serious money, more than our camera bodies, and for most of us it is these items that we aspire to that offer the real potential to boost IQ significantly.

Very glad to hear that you're getting more satisfaction!

I raised the question about JPEG only to highlight the differences. The consensus here has always been that our Pentax cameras are capable of very good JPEG output.

It seems logical to me (although not a JPEG shooter) that we should try and take as much control of the fine tuning of JPEG shots on the camera. This is because at capture the in-camera processing is actually working with the full RAW data, so the adjustments are made with this advantage at the point of conversion to the camera JPEG. (Straight after this the RAW is thrown away for ever - this is your only grab of it in JPEG-only mode).

We don't have this advantage when opening the JPEGs into editing software. So its worth spending some effort when taking the shots to check the results as much as possible on the LCD and try and optimise then and there.

I've always been puzzled as to why there's not more discussion and information posted on this forum about the differences between the custom controls on the different models, and what effect they have on certain styles of photography.

So are we saying that a DSLR is wasted on those who shoot JPEGs ?