it says something about me that I was expecting two Land Rovers lol

I like this, and I like the castle looking dark and forbidding. B&W works really well here too.

one reason and one reason only, to minimise moire when shooting a subject which is likely to cause it. Whats so hard to understand?

horses for courses, some people find PP software on computers daunting, or want to make the change in the field while they still clearly remember what they were trying to achieve.

Personally, I would always do this sort of thing in RAWTherapee later, but I have been known to use the in camera development on my K10D when I want to give someone an image there and then.

Sounds good to me. I have yet to enjoy ownership of a cmos based camera, I do have a K10 and a *ist dl2. Both ccds but different ones. The noise characteristics are quite different between them, giving a different feel to images where noise is present. I've never quite decided which I prefer, although the 10d noise tends to be easier to get rid of.

Are we perhaps looking at something similar between the ccd and cmos bodies? Could we be drawing the line in the wrong place?

This is all wild speculation of course.

I couldn't be less interested in arguing with you Smeggy, if you're actually interested, I suggest you start at the wiki article on electromigration and read around from there.

The longer my K10 lasts, the happier I will be, but I wouldn't bet a penny on it seeing its 20th birthday.

That may not be completely true Nigel, the claim that 35mm is better in low light depends on the photosites being larger, which actually means that a 35mm camera which is "better in low light" has a lower spatial resolution than an APS-C camera.


The problem users of a Pentax 35mm are likely to hit is one of vignetting with wide angle lenses. Film is very forgiving of angle of incidence, digital sensors less so.

no it doesn't, but changing focal length does and a larger sensor size dictates a longer focal length for the same subject distance and framing.

You know this perfectly well.

two things jump out at me

1: nothing taken above ISO 200

2: on a camera which has a shiney new metering module which is one of its flagship features, all but one of them has a significant exposure compensation applied.

As always it's hard to tell anything much from sample images, looking forward to some reviews and user experiences!

things made in the 70s and 80s weren't based on modern silicon chips Smeggy, the technology simply didn't exist and comparing a PRIME or CCD chip to 70s and 80s computer technology simply isn't comparing the same thing.

In a modern chip you are looking at electrical connections literally a few tens of atoms wide. The simple act of passing a current through them will cause degradation over time through electronic migration which would never accumulate to problematic levels in the chips made in the 80's.

My source may well not be accurate, but I'd be surprised if it's out by more than a factor of two and personally I wouldn't bet in which direction.

The K10D will die out long before the K1000

Think about this another way, when there is no more Velvia in the world, isn't it better to have a filter which approximates the look than not? No one's arguing that the filter is as good as the real thing, but when the real thing no longer exists, surely the filter is better than nothing?

it should be safe to assume that it'll be at least as good as the models on show though