I had a couple of new laptops lined up in John Lewis this afternoon, credit card primed for purchase, absolutely had decided spec-wise I was getting one of them, both Windows 8.

Asked the sales guy to demo how to quickly get to a desktop screen like windows 7 so I could start copying files over and installing software - well it went fairly pear-shaped from there. Explorer shortcut on taskbar was invalid, couldn't get any libraries to open, when eventually he managed to 'search' on the metro screen and find a 'computer' folder (apparently the only way???) the DVD drive was missing (physically it was there).

Also clicking on the live tiles opened full screen images with no menus or seemingly any way to control them. I know I just need to learn it all but frankly, I'll have to try and uninstall all the apps for social media first, then learn a new way to navigate around. The sales guy also said people were having trouble installing full versions of programs if an 'app' version was pre-installed.

In the end I was totally scared off - walked out. I am now going to buy a Windows 7 machine online. I want to get on with my photo and video work, not have to spend my time removing stuff and jumping through hoops just to get the OS to work for me!!

The Adobe photo editing products (Photoshop, Photoshop Elements & Lightroom) all use an 'add-on' piece of software in order to carry out the adjustments & conversion from RAW format into an 'image-type' file (such as TIFF / JPEG). This add on is known as a 'plug-in', because it is placed within an internal folder of the program on your computer, and it runs automatically when you open any RAW file. (Lightroom works differently in that the ACR plugin functions are integrated, but I don't think you've got Lightroom, right??)

Your program will have come with the version of ACR that was current at the time your program was packaged for sale -and if your particular program has been superceeded then the ACR plugin is also out of date.

You get the latest one from the Adobe website for free, you just have to follow the instructions for your specific program to put it into the correct folder. This may solve your problems, but it is hard to see what is going wrong exactly here. Its worth a shot though to get the latest ACR anyway.

If you're not too into computers, what camera have you got ? You might very well enjoy my suggestion of 'in-camera' RAW conversion, which offers quite a good range of adjustments and control over your shot, and you're still outputting a 16bit TIFF, which is what you want.

If you are only 'converting' the RAW files from a camera proprietory type into DNG (a good idea I think), then I would suggest you download the latest version of the free Adobe DNG Converter. The DNGs will be good for archiving

If you are processing the files into images (like TIFF) then you may be better to update your software - maybe having the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW plugin will help?

Otherwise, why not try your camera? My K7 carries out RAW conversions using the in camera processing controls and outputs to 16bit TIFF - quality is great! You can control the following parameters to make your shots sparkle :

custom image preset - white balance (plus fine control) - exposure -High / Low key contrast - sharpness with 3 levels of 'fineness' layers - saturation - master contrast - hue - noise reduction - distortion & CA corrections (with a DA lens) - cropping - rotating. Who needs a computer??

Autofocus during video recording can look bad and amaturish if it starts hunting around - best to get a lock on a mid point in the scene before starting and make tiny adjustment with MF - our DA lenses are perfect for this with their constant MF capability.

You can avoid any noise interferance anyway with a dedicated hotshoe mic - for really pro results this is the way to go (stereo also).

For me the main issue with my DSLR video (K7) is exposure - you can get it right with exposure compensation before recording (+ / - 2 stops), but can't adjust during the recording, so I find if moving indoors, say going further into a room away from the window, then it gets too dark. If I could have auto exposure adjust (keeping the compensation pre set) that would make a big difference. But then maybe this will also look bad in practice!!

If SR will be active, it makes sense to get the input figure as near as possible to the actual lens focal length - eg for my 14mm I have to enter 15.

For a zoom, yes, the mid range figure would be a fair compromise, but if you are averaging more shots at either end of the range then go for a figure nearer to that specifically.

Another consideration is that these manual lenses will leave a number of XMP data fields empty in the file metadata, so your entered value will be recorded in the focal length field instead - this can be useful for identifying the lens used in the future.

That is impressive then. This size of sensor has been more traditionally associated with compact / bridge type cameras. I wonder if the fact it is combined with quality lenses also makes a difference?

Surely those vicious claws and spikes in Smeggys shot would be even sharper with a K5IIs.

Bob, you did very well not to get snagged on some zoo railings with all that equipment hanging around your neck.

I've heard of photographers using 2 identical bodies with different lenses, but perhaps never quite the extreme difference presented with your 2 choices. The Q is perhaps still the smallest mirrorless CSC around?

Just a couple of issues come to mind - did you shoot with the DSLR using the optical viewfinder or switch to LV? I wonder, because I'd have thought it would be disconcerting to switch back and forth between viewfinder on one body and an LCD on the other.

And also, thats a very small sensor on the Q. Could you detect any glaring limitations in the latitute of RAW adjustments as a result of this, or at least compared to similar pics from the DSLR? For example, would there be any chance at all of getting much back from the blown highlights in the first shot (if you wanted to that is), and I wonder if the same shot on the DSLR would offer more in this respect?

UPDATE 1 to PDCU Mini Guide - Software Scope & Purpose, additional points
The mini guide has generated some new (and ressurrected some ongoing) debates about peoples experiences with the program, as well as plenty of comparisons to the alternatives! Mostly these comments are favourable concerning the quality of output and the colours attainable, not so favourable concerning the interface and ease of use. I contributed a bit on the forum and I have taken the points I was making and produced some extra information about the programs 'purpose & scope' which I offer here as an update to the guide. It will slot into the 'Software Purpose & Scope' section near the beginning, after the text that is already there.

Update 1 to PDCU Mini Guide - Software Purpose & Scope, additional points :
New text here :
'There has been much comment and debate from Pentax people on the forums about the relative merits (or otherwise!) of this software when compared to other RAW converter options. Indeed it was some of this that convinced me of the need for a guide, as there has been confusion over aspects of the interface that are not considered ‘intuitive’ or standard. There is an explanation for this which may help your appreciation of what the program is all about and what it can achieve.

PDCU is not laid out in the manner of other ‘generic’ RAW editors – (those that work with a wide range of RAW files from different camera makes), so it does not provide the more common type of ‘front end’ with a selection of sliders for exposure, contrast, shadows, highlights etc. PDCU is actually designed to mimic the ‘in-camera’ image processing controls provide on the DSLRs – an so it provides a computer based implementation of these ‘in camera’ editing features, plus a few extra sophistications and finer controls drawn from the parent program, Silkypix Developer Studio.

But in terms of interface and layout the program follows fairly closely the style and structure of the DSLR camera menus and individual image processing functions. For example, there is no independent master Contrast control, something you would find on other RAW editors. Instead there are three controls (Contrast high/low / Contrast highlight / Contrast shadow) on the Custom Image tab – just as on the cameras these controls are within the Custom Image Parameter settings. So if we reconsider what PDCU is offering along these lines, we can see that it provides a means to achieve exactly what we could have done on the camera if we had spent time making all the individual settings before taking the shot – not a very productive use of time when out shooting pictures I think! But with PDCU we can recreate the optimum output that the camera can provide by taking control of these settings on the computer later'.

Updates to 'generic' RAW editors (such as ACR) contain 'camera profiles' for each new model added (eg K5II). These are effectively default opening parameters that should provide a pre-determined base starting point for your adjustments. I think in ACR you can see the effect of this by cycling between the defaults (camera profile / program default).

DNGs will contain the same camera profile for each software as the propriatory RAW would, but be aware these defaults are limited to the specific editing controls employed by each particular software - so really the updates are software specific. I'm not sure who is responsible for actually creating the camera profiles - the camera maker or software maker ?

However AFAIK you don't have to buy a new version of LR to update these profiles - they are provided in ACR, which is freely updated through the Adobe website.

DNG appears to bring great benefits for us Pentax people whose cameras shoot in the file format natively - it can store parameter adjustment data within the file itself, very handy for archival purposes as you don't need to worry about XMP 'sidecar' files becoming disassociated if you move things around or change computers for example.

Check the settings though in any parametric editor (such as Lightroom) that maintains a database, and ensure that all the metadata for your DNGs is indeed written to the file and not stored only in the program database, or else you face similar association issues when you migrate to a dfferent computer or create a copy of your archive.