Again, this is a rather 'portrait-centric' view of things - assuming that a great pic will have a particular area as subject and other more exterior or peripheral areas of less importance. For different subject types and for specific output needs consistent sharpness across the frame would be important.

Anyway, I had always thought that the whole reason that Digital has taken off (at the high end anyway) was precisely because it was perceived as offering IQ and resolution superior to 35mm :

Another important consideration when choosing an appropriate sharpening method has to be if it is destructive or non destructive. If you choose a destructive option (ie working directly on a pixel layer on a rendered file) then you would choose to 'save as' each different versions for each different purpose (ie web or print).

In John's case, his camera JPEG +1 setting would be considered a 'Capture Sharpening', and ideally this file would remain untouched as a 'Master'. Any destructive sharpening to the base image pixels(the 'output sharpening') would need to be saved out as new JPEGs for each purpose (and sized appropriately also).

An alternative though would be to work in a non-destructive manner, which would include any layered techniques (such as the High Pass for example) and maintaining the original base layer as the 'Master'. You could then create a different layer with the specific shapening applied for each output and simply switch the other layer off when saving out each version. In this way your 'Master' file includes ready made output shapening options there already - very handy no doubt if sending the file to anyone else for printing different sizes if needed.

I certainly don't think older Pentax Primes would be 'rubbish' either, those who have them can look forward to their renewed usefullness with much excited anticipation! I was making the point that we have to take a wider sytem view when thinking of the upgrade, or making purchase decisions now. For example, I chose the Samyang 14mm prime to use now as it is a useful focal length on APS-C, but part of the decision was thinking about its future potential on FF (it produces a FF image circle), and reported edge sharpness was a factor there.

Comparisons to 35mm film may not be that helpful - I mean, we'll be seeing far higher resolutions on FF digital than 35mm film can produce (I believe?), so this is where the 'unforgiveness' could enter. The Nikon lenses that I referred to in the magazine comparison with the Hassleblad system were all pro grade.

PS Elements is good for learning as it has a 'Guide' mode - this opens windows that combine key adjustment controls with explanations of what to do as you go. Once you've got more confident then you simply switch to 'Full Edit' mode and use the controls without the handholding.

Like full photoshop, without this guide mode, then the various adjustment panels are a bit hidden under menu items, so it can be confusing to begin with. Elements has been devised specifically for photographers without all the art & design features of full Photoshop.

If you open RAW files then initially the Adobe Camera Raw window will open firstly to allow you to make basic adjustments and then the image is opened into the main Elements window for more detailed work.

A key reason for using Elements would be to learn about Layers, which provide a very flexible way of adjusting smaller parts of photos in detail, or of combining shots in various ways. All good stuff, and very useful as your skills develop!

Not much bokeh going on at f2.8 on my Samyang 14mm! But plenty of edge of edge sharpness to look forward to on FF (so I'm told!)

I think this makes the point that it is good to consider your shooting styles and requirements along with your current system and potential spending power when dreaming of a FF future. If your style is close up portraits shot wide open at 50mm plus, then there's going be that leeway in edge quality, maybe nothing to worry about. For the landscape / architecture / macro shooters it may be an issue.

I read a detailed comparison recently between the Nikon D800e and the Hasselblad D40 'medium format' machine (40megapixels). In general the Nikon sensor excelled more at high iso's / low light stuff, giving less noise, and conversly the Hasselblad gave better detail, tones and resolution at the lower iso's.

However, the Nikon consistenly was let down by its lenses. Where the Hasselblad glass was rock solid across the frame at all apertures, the Nikon lenses (not cheap ones at all!) fell off in quality at the edges and at wider apertures. In short it seemed only the Hasselblad had the lens range to do justice to the camera sensor.

The question for us , is where do the Pentax lenses place us as we move towards this future?

Well yes, I can hardly be expected to accept that the quality difference between the two formats is insignificant. I would suggest some caution might be in order though, particularly for those of us with mid range or older glass. I think a FF sensor will be particularly unforgiving of a lot of these lenses, and those that like to shoot full open as well might start to see a tapering off of quality they haven't yet noticed at the edges of the frame :

I feel its a bit like high end hi fi - you need to match the different components carefully to avoid one weak element pulling the lot down.

Are you saying the inacuracies of the electronic level are the system itself or just the 'Attitude Indicator' display on the rear LCD? On the K7 I make use of the horizon indicators in the viewfinder and have found them very accurate.

Is that not a topless woman hiding behind those curtains ??

Just a point that stood out for me, (and maybe some might find debatable :wink - wouldn't DOF actually be more difficult to manage on FF? I mean, am I right to think you would have to use smaller apertures to achieve the same DOF, leading to slower shutter speeds / higher iso's / need a tripod etc (ie more difficult) ??

I'm thinking of all the landscape books I've seen with shots taken on large format cameras with f32 as the most common setting!

I use O & O Disc Image Pro (latest version is 7). This has the advantage of offering 'Incremental' disc imaging, so after the initial image is created (can be of any drive - external or internal), subsequent backups can be only incrementally on the changes.

In the case of needing a restore the program sort of merges all the incremental backups with the original to produce a full restore of the drive in its latest state.

Also you have 'Machine Independant Imaging', meaning disc images can be restored to entirely new hardware in the case of full malfunction.