I'm thinking the 's' version would not have any difference in AF performance above the standard K5II ? Under normal shooting (ie using optical viewfinder) on an SLR, ASAIK the AF sensor gets its light via the pentaprism / mirror directly, it doesn't depend on the sensor.

Of course, this may be different for Live View with the contrast detect AF activated?? I wonder if anyone could determine whether the lack of AA filter on the 's' does boost AF performance in this situation ?

Still confusing! I can understand a connection between abandoning .PEF and no longer providing 'camera specific' RAW software - but ASAIK the DNG format does allow the recording of the full range of camera parameter data, and that can be interpreted by PDCU - so thats not a logical reason to stop providing the software.

The only thing I can surmise is that the camera menus and processing controls on the K30 are so significantly different to those on the K7 / K5 ranges to make the files incompatable with PDCU - and they havn't developed a specific replacement for the K30

Personally I don't have any issue with the only RAW option being DNG - I gave up shooting .pef early on with my K7 in the interests of efficiency (no need to convert for archiving). DNG would seem to be the best candidate for 'master file' status, and I have unable to find any quality or metadata parameter loss associated with shooting DNG (I believe all the same metadata is recorded in both DNG & PEF).

Maybe Pentax have thought the same and are abandoning .PEF? What about the K5II - does it still record to both RAW options?

Just been over to the US forum where there has been some discussion about the Silkypix version that is sold with the K30. There has been some confusion over this, and from what others have been saying, the K30 comes with an earlier version of Silkypix that doesn't have any of the Camera applied parameters at all! But I understand that a new version of PDCU has been released along with the K5II. Don't understand what is going on with the K30 software ???

Would I be right to assume that the K30 still shoots .PEF / DNGs ? I have heard that the menu system is quite different, and PDCU mimics many of the in camera processing menus, so maybe they just have not redesigned any software to mimic the K30 processing menus??

If you are shooting RAW and do your PP on a computer with any software other than what came with the camera, then there is no point whatsoever in setting Shadow / Highlight corrections on. Do we know if any other RAW converters (eg Lightroom) can read the related metadata and apply it in any meaningful way?

With the K7 / K5 then Pentax Digital Camera Utility will read the camera settings and apply them in the software when opening the file, with a very similar result to if you had set them on the camera and shot a JPEG. Obviously with PDCU you have some extra fine tuning available, which in my view is an advantage. With any other software you will have the default parameters applied, whether or not the camera settings were active or not.

If you shoot JPEGs, then absolutely, use the in-camera controls as much as you can - the results can be great. Be aware however that the Highlight Correction will limit your lowest ISO to 200 (shadow has no effect I believe), and you may experienece some lag in displaying the images on the LCD, or increased time to display the final shot of a burst, as the camera takes time to carry out the processing for the LCD image - another good reason not to set these functions on camera if shooting RAW and processing on a computer.

I think we should look at this another way - the AA filter has always been there to compensate for sensor technology limitations, ie: the production of moire under certain conditions. On the most modern and larger sensors (APS up) available now, technology has improved to the point that moire production is now limited to a reduced range of situations. So you can do away with the filter!

I wouldn't want anything getting in the way of my shiny new top of the range sensor unless it was absolutely necessary, as I'd feel I'm losing something! Just like with any given lens, or a filter on that lens, we will not see the best or worst of it in every shot - these differences will manafest themselves in differing conditions of lighting and subject material. Likewise the lack of AA filter will show its effect in differing situations.

The important quest for us now is surely to try and establish exactly what shooting conditions or subject materials would most consistently provide an improvement over what we already have, and also those conditions where the lack of the filter will still cause problems. Only when knowing this and considering your own photography can you choose sensibly.

Surely this really comes down to how you 'manipulate' the image and output? If there is any actual increased 'resolution' to the 's' images then what's important is the practical effect on your output. eg can you reduce any PP sharpening for a given print size, or could you get a bigger print with the same clarity without excessive sharpening or any artifacts?

If this were true, then the potential alone should make it worth it. I've seen web comparisons that were convincing, but nothing like the big prints that I've referred to.

We're talking about a filter (over the sensor) - its purpose until very recently was to compensate for certain deficiencies in sensor technology, more so for smaller units I understand. If technology has now advanced to the point that the filter is no longer required, how can that be anything other then A VERY GOOD THING ?

You're probably talking about the administrator permission dialogues that pop up whenever a new process or installation is happening. As the whole user account / permissions thing became very upfront in Vista it got a bad press, and this has very much stuck. To most extents and purposes Vista is not that dissimilar to W7 - the newer OS has a few nice usability improvements. I believe it is possible to disable the admin permissions pop ups so that Vista behaves much like windows 7.

Well, considering that it is fairly impossible to develop a RAW file with absolutely no 'manipulations' made at all, at least by default settings in conversion software, and that any in camera JPEGS are fully manipulated according to the user settings on the camera, then it would appear that no digital camera photo could be acceptable