The trouble with the magazines of course is that the material is fixed once its printed, and any uninformed reader will tend to accept the verdicts and opinions therin as authoritive, and there is no counter - balance that will be offered.

At least on a forum there is the opportunity for all to see any alternative viewpoints, which can be backed up by other evidence (links to other references for example) - and you can reassess what you take from it all.

I was suggesting there might be some advantage in fitting the same amount of data into a bigger (sensor) space!

Smeggy & Pentaxophile - I appreciate your points, but you remain very much inside the world of the 'all-in-one'solution. My question was really raising the possibility of separating the distinct key workflow stages : in my case I would not want to begin again with a new cataloging / image database - for me the 'NEXT BIG THING' will be imatch 5, now in private beta. But I might take advantage of some of LRs integrated RAW and edit features in the interest of efficiency.

But I'd need to disengage the catalogue (Library is it called?), or at least render it superfluous to managing edits within the program, in order to avoid duplication of the purely image organization aspects that I have already invested time in elsewhere.

That this blurring of distinction between the different key components of a workflow (as presented in a 'all-in-one' solution such as LR / Aperture), may be the cause of numerous misconceptions / misunderstandings about such programs. Keeping an awareness of exactly what functional stage you are at when either thinking about using the software or actually learning it would most likely help - I guess!!

There are clearly some common misconceptions about the difference between the traditional 'image editor' (ie pixel pusher) and the newer breed of 'parameric image editors' (ie proceses that record and store parameters of adjustment metadata to be rendered when the user is ready).

The whole business is further complicated when we consider the 'all-in-one' workflow-solution type of program (such as LR), which as well as combining tradional RAW conversion (parametric type) processes with image editing functions (also stored as metadata in an internal database), adds in an image collection cataloguing feature, with image specific metadata, tags, XMP / IPTC data fields as well!

What has previously been 4 distict workflow processes (cataloging, RAW convert, archive, image editing / output optimising) can become somewhat merged and indistict through a refined and seamless interface. It is surely this reduced distinction in the new users mind that can lead to difficulties or misunderstandings.

Of interest to me (as a user of separate programs for the key workflow areas) would be an option in Lightroom to disengage (deactivate) the catalogue. I am not sure if this is possible - I believe that one of LRs competitors (Bibble 5) does offer this possibility.?

Just populating an APS-C sensor with additional photo-sites would not I believe, lead to an automatic IQ increase, all else being equal. If the quest for improved s/n ratios and extra 'clarity' continues, then FF may be the only way to go.

Larger photo-sites with more light gathering abilities can be accomodated onto a FF sensor without pushing pixel densities to crazy extents, so boosting IQ without excessive file size increases.

It would be good to know how any 645D shooters feel about this. Are the advantages of this digital 'medium format' as immediately obvious as the previous film equivilent was over 35m?

If we limit this to just the 'more is better' aspect - ie will FF improve our standards, well to an extent most technical enhancements will open up more potential for certain situations.

FF ? Apart from the field of view adjustments with lenses (wider views without such short focal lengths being the obvious advantage - you should be able to get a better lens for your money I'd have thought) I guess it comes down to whatever IQ improvments the sensor maker can squeeze out of it. I'm not sure that all else being equal a bigger sensor populated with an equivilent density of sites would necessarily imrove on the APS-C alternative.??

Maybe under perfect controlled conditions - but I don't think I could ever accept the loss of flexibility that digital now offers - you just get more chances.

I've done some scanning from 35mm negs (in 48bit, over 4000 SPI to maintain a resolution for printing of at least 240 ppi), and I'm afraid I've never been able to achieve the same level of the qualities you listed as from my K7 DNGs. There is just nowhere near the amount of PP latitude from these scanned TIFFS, so I'm not able to get the best results like that.

I can't wait to check out all the weird and complex distortions at the edges on my FF Samyang 14mm - after spending nearly £300 I havn't even been able to see them yet

I have heard that there are some old Pentax FF cameras out there that were pretty good. Will have to try and find some of that film that goes in them as well.

Lightroom is an attempt to merge a number of distict photo management, processing, manipulation and output functions. More traditionally these individual functions have been provided by entirely different products or sub-programs - eg Adobe Bridge (Organiser) / PS (Editor) / ACR Raw Converter) - Elements Organiser / Elements Editor / ACR, or completely different softwares, eg imatch (database manager / cataloger & organiser), PDCU (Pentax DSLR Specific RAW converter), Sagelight (Editor)
etc etc etc.

Whether you want to introduce a new database & image organiser system onto your computer and into your workflow really depends on how your images are already organised. If you can always find the shot your need, can search using various metadata criteria, launch your images efficiently into your editing programs and otherwise efficiently manage your workflow, then you wouldn't naturally consider Lightroom.