Yes, this is looking increasingly like the type of factors that a valid test would need to limit itself to. The other more creative inputs will be there as well, and will obviously influence peoples responses, but we should be able to restrict how much individuals factor in these opinions when making a final preference.

Lets put it down to a glitch David! I know you have produced many good looking images using PS before. Frankly, I envy you - I'd rather be out and about in the lakes in the misty blue murk with my delicious Pentax gear shooting pics than stuck indoors on my laptop doing all this PP!

Sure, that'd be good to know. There's nothing to suggest its not a good quality lens that I can see. The pictures do look to me like ones that would, with a normal sensor, have had some PP sharpening done. So if they had not had this, then that would be showing us the effect of the removed filter on this new camera.

I'm guessing the point of this type of arrangement is to avoid the software sharpening, or at least significantly reduce it,and so provide enhanced image quality straight from the camera?

Yep, all valid things to compare. But there is now a wider range of 'definition' processes available in some newer software, not really traditional sharpening at all. These processes can dramatically boost an images depth and realism, used carefully.

I know PS offers many multi-step ways to apply types of sharpening (mostly involving masking, layers, filters (like high pass) and different blend modes), but other software has alternative (more simple mostly) means to achieve some of this - for many users the added simplicity itself will raise the quality of output they potentially could achieve.

I would rate technical quality of the output first before features & workflow, but yes, they both are the prime considerations.

No doubt, they mostly look really crisp. Is there any way of knowing if any type of software sharpening has been applied, or are we seeing the effect straight from the camera?

I would rather discuss the differences between how specific software achieves certain edits - I have always found the info you have provided on Lightrooms' workings very informative. Sounds like Sagelight has similar functioning, but implemented in a different way, and with a different style of user control input. This is the kind of thing a comparison working on a photo could try and illustrate any advantage of one over the other.

I continue to agree with all that a much more tightly defined comparison regime needs to be set up beforehand, and all who are judging need to know these criteria in before.

My Loyal Subjects, (and any miscellaneous plebs out there), tell me tell me tell me do, have I spoken for any of you?

Smeggy, it is exactly the kind of process (in Lightroom) you refer to that I am trying to put to the test. Similarly, in Sagelight, there is a 'Smart Fill' slider, with radio buttons to control what secondary processes are automatically applied simultaneously when applying the fill - EG: 'Add Contrast', 'Soft Light' 'Reduce Saturation' etc.

It is precisely these intelligent processes that I would like to highlight, and offer people the opportunity to experience and compare.

See, I've only used 'I' in this post.

Smeggy, are you suggesting I should fall off my high horse