Don't panic! Your DNG files should be exactly where you put them, and they should be perfectly intact. Any edits you made in the program will have been recorded and added as metadata to either the DNG file itself, in Lightroom's own database of image records.

If you find the DNG again and re-open it it should load up with all the alterations you have already made applied again. JPEG would be a good output option if you are finished working on the photo and want to display it on a webpage or possibly send it to an online printers.

But you should find that the JPEG is a new file entirely. (Did you get an opportunity to rename it? )

Other Forums review out now - sorry if its been linked already somewhere:

link

Quick look through seems to suggest not much risk for most situations with K5iis, especially at lower isos. Not so much difference reported at high isos and very small apertures.

Good results from Moire testing also - not much to worry about for majority of situations. Yes, the knitting catalog shooters had better try something else, but generally nothing much to worry about.

That can be clearly seen for sure. I'd be immediately convinced on my points 1) & 4) above. So far a fairly happy customer. What about the other points, anyone.

What I would need to be clearer on, for any buying assessment, would be a firm idea on the validity of the following assumptions - what do you all think, would this be a fair sales pitch?

I should choose a K511s over the standard model because I want to :
1) Save time in PP as I'll not need to sharpen
2) Be able to sharpen more in PP without causing artifacts
3) Be able to make bigger prints that are just as sharp
4) My shots will have more clarity and definition
5) If I take shots of highly patterned textures such as textiles, I will
see Moire effects, but I can remove this easily in PP

As this all seems win win, will I be a happy customer, or will I be going back to the salesperson and claiming to have been misled?

Direct and valid comparisons will always be difficult for an individual photographer - I mean, once we get it sorted in our minds on what exactly we need to be looking for, we're going to have to rely on trustworthy technical reviews on the web - I doubt there will be much use in going into Jessops in order to try out both models and see which you prefer

And the idea of thinking in resolution terms, such as MTF data for lenses, in relation to sensors is quite new I think? The traditional idea of resolution in sensor terms is pixel dimensions and numbers, related to the overall sensor size - so it is now necessary to consider how the various sensor specs and filters interact to produce a single comparative measure, if indeed any such measure yet exists?

Also, looking down some post on that thread, some are saying there's no point if you can just 'crank up the sharpening in PP' on the K5ii to match the level of sharpness that the 's' output.

But won't the 'cranking up' introduce artifacts - if you don't need as much in PP then that would be an obvious quality improvement I'm guessing.

Well, that seems to be saying 'Get the 's' model, unless you shoot lots of textiles, fabrics etc with repeating patterns - and try and avoid shooting close ups of test charts as well!'

Interestingly, they sum up by saying that the benefits are increased 'clarity and resolution' - brings me back to my point / question above about how exactly to describe and quantify the IQ benefits. I can understand 'clarity', but 'resolution'??

I'm still a bit unclear on exactly the nature of the of IQ improvements that we should be seeing on the 's' model (without the filter). There were some examples posted on another thread which looked to me, what I would describe as 'sharp', like they had been well sharpened in post processing - very nice quality sharpening I must say.

It was referred to by other posters as 'Higher Resolution' than the standard K5 - but I understood that this would imply a higher number of pixels - and this is not the case in sensor spec terms is it?

Am I right in thinking that the resolution would be the same, but that the lack of 'AA' filter would eliminate some blurring that we currently accept as normal, and so images would be sharp out of the camera - therefore the key advantage is not needing to sharpen at all (or as much) in PP - so less artifact etc, equals higher quality?

Higher resolution would imply bigger prints possible at same quality - but we're not saying we could make bigger prints from K5iis are we?

Envious sideways glances, surely

The May 2012 edition of WebUser magazine ran a comparative article for online storage & sync services - I guess it will be available on their website. The results were :

Google Drive - Gold award
Mozy Stash - Silver
Microsoft Skydrive - Bronze

A few others rated good were Dropbox, Justcloud, Livedrive Briefcase.

I chose to try Microsoft skydrive, because according to the magazine it offers the best bang per buck in terms of price per GB. Also I feel reasonably secure with Microsoft in terms of their financial security for the longer term and keeping the service going.