Those Macro bug shots posted a few days ago taken on the K5IIs were convincing for sure. But it takes me back to my earlier thought - if I'm going consider it to be worth the money for this higher 'resolution', I need to know for sure that I couldn't just get the same result on a first generation K5 along with some fancy sharpening techniques in software.

You see, I never really get the suggestion that if one camera brand cannot offer a particular feature or quality improvement at a particular time, that this would be the sole reason for getting a camera by another maker. I mean, we're not just talking about a camera here - there are entire systems involved.

Unless an individual has (for some reason) built up or obtained a collection of system items from 2 different brands, then a jump from one to the other must surely involve completely unjustifiable expense?

I still think we need to get a consensus on what the actual practical benefits will be in purely output terms. Over on the other thread just before, John Riley made the point that the difference would only be significant on big printed enlargements, that it would have no significace for web images. Well, I've not seen any comparisons between any big printed enlargements, we mostly are looking at web images!

I've seen the difference on screen in some cases, but an important question is this - taking two test shots side by side, would I simply be able to make the one shot on the original K5 look the same as that shot on the K5IIs simply by opeing it in software and applying additional and expert sharpening techniques? Or is there something inherently superior in the K5IIs image that I could not reproduce in any way in software??

For serious landscape work the only really flexible enough type of filters are those known as a 'system' style. These come as square (ish) pieces of glass (with the exception of a circular polariser) that lot into a plastic frame - the frame screws into the lens filter thread and can usually hold 2 or 3 filters OK.

The budget choice would be Cokin, and then you have more expensive options from Lee Filters, B & W for example. The main consideration firstly is to check the filter thread size of you biggest lens (or the biggest you might plan on buying in future), as this will determine which size 'system' to invest in. Wide angles ( 77mm thread often) would demand the larger system in a range.

You buy a ring adaptor for each lens with a different filter size, and the adaptor screws onto the lens then the holder slips onto the adaptor ring.

Most systems rate their ND grads in 'stops' terms, indicating the equivilent light loss in stops of the shaded part. I think 1, 2, 5, stops is common and should cover most situations.

I'm sure others will provide more recent personal recommendations. I have not been using filters on the camera since starting to shot on Pentax Digital - I am finding I enjoy achieving the required effects in software, even using a software polarising filter.

Have a look at the comparison review over on the other side...
seems like the AF performance is only significant in low light. Still, could be worthwhile for some people.

link

I was wondering, is this higher low light Autofocussing still fully dependant on thE green AF assist lamp, or does the system respond better even without using the light?

[quote:3496ace15f="Smeggypants] I'm with Mike on this. Sure the removal of the AA filter is 'interesting' but in practise it's made hardly any difference to the IQ.[/quote]I thought there had been forming a fair consensus that the increased 'resolution' was mostly 'there to see'.

Not even the '-3ev' AF functioning? That's practically moonlight isn't it?

It'll depend on where an individual is coming from and where they need to get to with their shots, and how much money they can easily burn through without a worry.

I'm interested in some more testing / user feedback on the real AF perfomance gains in the field. As far as the AA filter issue, I have long suspected that the higher 'resolution' out of the 'box' will only either gift you less sharpening work in PP, or (as Smeggy suggests) get you bigger printed output that retains acceptable sharpness without too much PP sharpening (and risk of artifacts creeping in).

Yes, and sensibly they retained the base model number as 5, so it is clearly an 'upgrade option' and wider choice within the same main camera category. If the new models had been released with an entirely new number designation, then that could have been a disappointment and seen as just try-hard marketing.

What needs to be highlighted of course, is the fact that the new AF features and the AA filter removal on the 's' model, place this new camera on a higher footing in performance comparison terms with competitors offerings.

I love this approach as well - recently just used the new Samyang 14mm solely, but I've had a couple of days with only the Tamron Adaptall 135mm f2.8.

I'm guessing not many of us here will have much interest in a new X-5 then!

I'll have to sort out my username sometime ! I'm Nigel, I'll put it under my posts from now on.

As we're talking about manual focus lenses this may all be irrelevant - don't have the camera to try with me, but I guess you can't move the AF point select with a manual lens fitted?

Most photographers who 'grew up' with older cameras with only centre weighted metering and no focus point flashes, certainly find it intuitive to 'half-press', reframe then shoot. For handheld shots I rarely find anything practical. Every manual and guidebook we read now has details about moving your focus point to cover the subject, and using the AF-lock button.

But I find in reality that the extent that the points cover across the frame is not really wide enough - I'd prefer some to be right out nearer the far edges. Maybe I'd get this on a higher end model.

When shooting landscapes on a tripod its usually easier to forget about the focus points, just manual focus at the hyperfocal distance and dial in the appropriate aperture.

One point of interest - I bought secondhand an old Pentax book from the early 80's, sort of a Pentax-centric guide to photography, the LX was one of the cameras detailed. In the lens section it clearly warned against allowing rain onto a front element and also not to put any drops of cleaning fluid directly onto the glass, as it could seep around the edges into the lens body.

I am wondering, do our WR lenses provide full protection in this area now?