I am having difficulty in identifying the same image in both reviews. They all look different to me. Which images can be downloaded to make a direct comparison? For example the warehouse picture with the green wheel does not seem to have been used in the KII review. I am obviously missing something.

I would also like to see a comparison done with one of the Ltd lenses - say the 35mm 2.8 macro which is in a diffent league fro the the kit 18-55 as far as sharpness is concerned.

To add to my earlier comment on ACDSee Pro 6 - yes I have used Lightroom and do not deny that it is a first rate program, but I prefer the former since it uses the existing file and directory structure without any need for action on the part of the user to import or export. The database is updated either by using a catalogue or more reliably by instructing the program to embed the catalogue data into each file's metadata and as with Lightroom you can very easily export an image from the program to an external one such as PSE. My point is that post processing does not begin and end with Adobe products - there are quite a few alternatives that people might prefer - Capture One, Corel After shot pro are further examples.

So many people seem to think that Lightroom and Photoshop are the only programs worth bothering with. I find it very tedious that you have to import and export photos in Lightroom. I use ACDSee Pro 6 which has probably the best integration of database and editor of any program. It simply selects from the directories on your hard disk without any need to import. or export as it saves your finished work in its original directory. The RAW converter has exactly the same 'develop' process as for any other file format. Its editing process is however fairly basic and I export any photo which requires detailed, pixel level adjustments to PSE 11. It makes for a fairly smooth work flow.

Press the card in and release very suddenly and it will fly out - or at least it does so on my K5. There is a knack to it.

It would be hard decision to choose between the 21mm ltd and the 35mm ltd. I would probably go for the 21mm ltd, but both are very versatile lenses.

Bill, Thanks for link - yes a much better explanation than the manual. Miles

Of course you are both right and one should always aim at the best IQ possible, so I have changed my settings. I imagine that an uncompressed image will leave a little extra scope in post processing before any artifacts creep in. I usually shoot in Aperture Priority mode. I have always struggled to understand Page 102 of the manual, but I thought that it applied only to programmed mode, although I may be wrong.

As for storage, memory is much cheaper than it was. On the other hand when one is taking thousands of photos each year, it is amazing how quickly existing storage becomes inadequate. My PC 320GB hard disk is now too small for my image collection so it resides on a 1.5 terabyte ext hd disk which used to be backed up to an other ext hd drive which is now inadequate. Additional I back up every month or so to DVD and the number of disks required is constantly growing. I know the advantages of RAW, but I restrict its use to landscapes and to difficult lighting conditions.

Reading a post relevant to this earlier this week, I realised that I have never bothered to change my JPEG setting from the default 'best = 3 star' to the 'premium=4star'. I have always been satisfied with the 3 star setting and have never noticed any undue noise even when cropped and printed to A4 and above. By way of experiment today I took some photos in the garden at both settings and then examined them at a high level of magnification, but I am afraid that I failed to perceive much difference in quality. I wonder what the practice of others might be and do others find a marked difference between the two levels of compression?

This thread seems to have generated more heat than light. To me it is very simple. I aim to get a satisfactory exposure throughout the image and exposure correction helps me to do this. Where an object is backlit, the meter is fooled, so I dial in +.3 or +.7 correction. An example of this would be a person in front of a window or a plane in a bright sky, otherwise i will get a silhouette. Conversely dial in -.3 or -.7 when shooting a landscape,otherwise I end up with a blown out sky and then if necessary I bring up the shadows in post processing. Of course a lot can be corrected in post processing, but you have much more leeway to correct things if you get things right in camera.

It is very easy and much more cost effective to extend your household policy to cover camera gear up to a given value on a world wise basis - I have £2.5K cover and do not think it costs much more than £40 or so per annum.