I think this thread has taken off in two different ways. If we're trying to compare two tenses of the same basic specification (focal length, max aperture, type of element construction, coatings etc), then we may be wasting our time, at least if only looking at them on a computer screen.

Sure, if one of them is a standard 'consumer' grade item and the other is a 'pro' version equivalent, then under close scrutiny at magnification we could expect to see a difference, but for many picture conditions there probably won't be that much in it (handling might be another difference to think about).

But, the other way to look at this idea that 'its all about the glass', is the kind of take I have on it, which is that changing lenses, either to different focal lengths or increasing the max aperture for example, is where we usually see the biggest gain immediately. This will be a benefit on our current bodies as well as future improved models, so is a good way to spend money and see a result.

Well, yes, it should work. But I'm guessing its also a very new or unintuitive way for tradional photographers to compose their shots. I'm just curious to know if any Pentax user uses it - it is after all a specific unique Pentax feature! (because it uses the moving sensor).

I've just bought a new ball head because I felt frustrated with my old 3-way lever type head, and I was spending too much time tightening and untightening each lever to make fine adjustments. My first thought was to change to a ball head. It didn't occur to me to try the sensor shift horizon correction! Maybe I should? Or is this too very fiddly and time comsuming?

I've been impressed with what is achievable with Sagelight. Its certainly good value and offers many different ways to process and enhance any image type - it works with most RAW files, or TIFF / JPEGS.

Its best to start out with a few key editing panels first, and gradually expand the options. It uses an 'undo brush' feature to wipe out any edit in areas where the effect is not needed, which in general is easier than making selections or applying edits to layers (Photoshop style).

Its very powerful in the areas of fine contrast control in shadow or highlight areas independently, which are managed with button clicks and sliders (not levels type graph), but it does include a good curves editor. Once you get going with it, it is very fast and effective. Saturation and vibrance enhancing is very powerful too - you can apply one click 'masks' (eg: 'avoid skin tones' , or 'choose colour' to quickly control what colours will be altered.


link

So no-one actually uses the sensor shift horizon adjustment when shooting on a tripod? I presume this is also available on the K5 and the new K5 updates? Strange if no-one chooses to use it.

I love the squirrel shot - the background is particularly nice and smooth, and the colours are beautiful and full.

OK, I should have said that most of my own shots (the fair weather ones at iso 100!), with the same lens and same settings, would not look any different at a normal magnification or print size, if shot on a K7 or K5. Thats what I really mean! Granted, a close inspection at the shadows might reveal some difference.

I was really looking at it from an overall value for money persepctive. This obviously depends on an individuals photography priorities and what equipment they already have. In your case Smeggy, you have already got fast lenses, but another person who wanted to get a shallower DOF, would be better advised to invest in a f1.8 or f1.4 lens, before upgrading the camera.

I understand, I know that the K-5 brought significant gains in its high iso performance, and the burst rate increased, and maybe other sensor related improvements. But the importance of these depends on an individual's style and technical needs. I don't make use a lot of ISO 800 or above (you could say I'm more of a fair weather photographer!)

So it would not make financial sense upgrading from K7 to K5, all else being equal - I think most photos would look exactly the same if shot on either.

But an investment in some serious 'big glass' would definately make a difference, and continue to make a difference in the future when these lenses are used on any newer body. For example, I spent a minimal amount of money on an old (1976) Tamron Adaptal 135mm f2.8, and I can produce completely different shots with it than I can with my 'K' 75-150 f4.0 zoom, just because of the extra stop, the finer manual focusing and the extra sharpness. Likewise the new Samyang 14mm f2.8 - this could change my photography for ever as it opens up so many new possibities.

I agree that at present the K5 II is an enticing prospect at the right price - the advances to autofocus look significant, and that could make a difference in many situations.

Going back to your OP Peter, if you don't have the latest TV, or don't want to spend time editing the vidoes on a computer and burning discs, then yes, you can buy a cable and connect directly from the camera to the TV (cable is 'mini HDMI one end, normal HDMI other end). The playback screen on the camera offers basic controls.

I believe (at least on the K7 I think) that you can apply certain enhancing settings to video recordings by using the Custom Image settings on the camera prior to recording. This could be a preset like 'landscape', 'natural', 'sunset' etc, and then you can apply more precise adjustments with the extra tweaking sliders on the LCD screen. These edits are then applied to the video footage after it is recorded.

This should give a better looking output for directly viewing, without needing to use a computer.

And presumably it would'nt take much for the independants to repackage their FF models in Pentax fit? Must be plenty of high quality Sigmas, Tamrons, Tokinas etc being used on fullframe C's & N's. . A 24-70mm zoom on FF is a good allrounder, and this is cheaper than the extreme wide angles needed for APS-C.

My guess is that Pentax would release a small number of new FF lenses, optimised for Digital, to sell with a new F camera. Hopefully we would then have a choice to buy them or look at independant alternatives.

I think (?) my new Samyang 14mm prime is actually full frame, which would give a spectacular field of view on a new Pentax F DSLR.

I was suggesting that if the lens offered a wider aperture then this could allow a lower iso in these low light situations, but also potentially other benefits (better bokeh, DOF effects, resolution improvements etc) that may all add up and make it more worth it.

More worth it than just upgrading the camera - I'm not so sure that the K5 is such a lightyear leap ahead of the K7? Is is not worth continuing to wait for the K5 II prices to settle, or even hold off for the next big thing?