Thanks for the feedback. I tried to bring out the crispness that the eye could see, but it is probably too much for screen viewing. I'll print it like this and maybe redo it for the web.

I get the feeling that many Pentax APS-C users have got a lot of good old film era lenses, and are yearning to get them back onto full frame again, especially at the wide end of the scale.

Then we would'nt have to keep worrying so much about which 10-20mm zoom or 14mm prine has the least distortion or sharpness issues at wide apertures. A FF model would certainly allow us to get the most out of these older lenses. Other DSLR brand owners with APS-C probably don't have the same concerns, as their lenses have to be modern anyway. We can all see the potential just over the horizon.


Welcome Pete, and look forward to hearing your thoughts on all things Pentax!

And on a further note about 'expert' reviews, spotted in 'What Camera' latest issue, on a new Panasonic Lumix model..'it has an internal ND filter to reduce exposure times'.

Thanks David - I did try a 'fusion' process on the 2nd image, and it wasn't successful. It was impossible to pull the shadows up sufficiently, and there was bad blue fringing in the upper parts of the trees (presumable where the sky was bleeding through in the mix of images), and there is no way to control this.

Ultimately it wasn't as flexible as the tone mapping controls.

Heres a couple of examples of my recent HDR work using Photomatix Pro 4. The subject matter is only of importance in relation to the high contrast that the scenes presented, and in both it was impossible to capture 'what the eye saw' in a single image.

In both the brightness range between extreme highlights (white clouds / brightest foliage) and darkest shadows was many stops beyond the camera's ability, but my own eyes could see all the detail at once. So I want to recreate that realistic 'as the eye can see it' effect.

Any thoughts on the success in this or otherwise much appreciated. All the RAW processing was done in Photomatix on automatic settings, including noise reduction, CA correction, reducing ghosting and aligning.Then adjustments made using the details enhancer controls, tone compressor function.

Each image is a processing of 5 individual bracketed shots on the K7 set to one push bracketing, spaced 1.5 stops apart, handheld. Final outputting to 8bit in PS Elements 8 and some selective work in the shadow areas to remove blue casts.

I visited a butterfly place in Devon recently, and even in 'captivity' they can be hard to shoot steadily - you need a good fast lens really, so well done to you for the sharpness and clarity.

I think you could have achieved better colours and saturation with maybe half a stop or so of minus exposure compensation.

I posted on another thread about this recently, but can't find it now. I have looked through the recent 'Which Camera?' guide, and its a it depressing in some ways. They do have the K-r and K-5. But any attempts at direct comparisons and feature by feature evaluation is hopeless, as although the reviews follow the same format there are glaring inconsistensices and contradictions:

eg. the K-5 under 'Image Quality' produces 'Exceptional exposure and metering results', while the Nikon D4 (in the same section) 'copes well in a range of shooting conditions' - well you'd bloody well hope so after spending over £4000 I'd think!

Elsewhere, for the K-5, 'there is no discernable detail at iso 51,200' (!). But there is no reference to the detail of any other camera at iso 51,200 at all. Overall, a bit of a waste of time, certainly if you're trying to decide between two different makes.

Just an update, as I started this originally. I have started using the ExpoDisc, and I must say, the claims made by the manufacturer are not at all exaggerated. I have undoubtedlty achieved a purer and more 'real-life' WB using this disc. In particular, it manages to eliminate the overdone (in my view) greens that the Daylight preset exhibits, and it seem to bring out more subtle pastel hues.

I'll have to post a few shots showing some comparisons soon, but in the meantime I am very pleased, and would recommend the item.There is a clear difference when using it instead of the Pentax manuel WB process, (which involves shooting a white surface). In general, I found the white surface approach produces more of an amber case (more like the shade preset) in many situations.

Yes, if you are shooting JPEGs only it does make sense to take command with these in camera settings. Our Pentax DSLRs, in addition to a wide range of preset 'Custom Image' modes, also have a great deal of individual tweaking sliders for finer control.

But, I look at it this way - the 'native' format for digital cameras is RAW (specific to each camera), so any output from the camera that we use to view, print etc is actually a 'conversion', and if we make any changes to exposure, WB, contrast, saturation etc, then we are 'editing' also.

This applies to outputting a 'conversion' or 'edit' directly from the camera or from a computer. The key differences I think come down to ease of use, efficiency and the degree of finer control we can exert. In my view, these aspects are all superior on a computer with various software deployed. Do I think you can get a higher quality image this way than on JPEG from the camera ? Yes, I believe in all situations the potential for this is there in RAW with computer editing.

Interestingly, I have recently taken a great interest in the Custom Images settings - not applied in camera, but using the Pentax Digital Camera Utility software. It has become my first 'conversion' step in my workflow. Why ? Because I think the quality of edits it applys is very high, and the fine control exceptional.

I think (for example) the white balance fine controls produce the best results that I have seen, and the Highlights Correction feature (as seen in Silkypix) is very sophisticated (you can control the degree of Saturation or hue that is pulled back into clipped highlights).

And you have additional controls for the available lens distortion and chromatic abberation corrections (auto and manual controls). Output to 16bit TIFF and you can carry on in another editor if needed.

Thats interesting. Not a good thing really, certainly another point (along with the direct optical viewfinder)in favour of DSLRs. Is this light loss to do with the 'translucent' mirror that is in these new Sony models (a mirror that doesn't move out of the way but passes the light though instead)?