Kh1234567890, thanks for the help. It is the focus 'pop' that appeals about the ee-s screen and I fully appreciate the need to shim it accurately. With the standard screen, there is too much room for error. Sure, you can rock focus back and forth and split the difference, but it is still hit and miss with wafer thin dof.
I was also aware that there is a need for exposure compensation with ee-s, but got the impression the adjustment was fairly consistent ( unlike some other focusing screens).
Really what I am trying to get a handle on, is whether the darker screen on slower glass ( say down to f5.6) is prohibitive or just a inconvenience.
I guess the only way I'll know if 'noticeably darker' with slower lenses is actually 'too dark' for me, will be to give one a try.

kh1234567890, I am really interested to know how you find the ee-s screen with slower glass. Generally, I do use legacy fast/ fastish leneses, probably 70% of the time. However the remaining 30% is with slower lenses. The reports are mixed, with many stating that the screen should be ruled out for these.
You said that you find it helpful, even for f5.6. But how useful? by this, is it a boon and quick aid to focus, or is it something that needs disproportionate time and concentration to use with slower apertures and darker viewfinder?

I appreciate it is subjective. I like the sound of the ee-S screen and the prospect of nailing focus/ dof on faster glass. I am prepared for compromise on slower glass, but do not wish to find that 'compromise' is actually closer to sacrifice.

thanks in advance
neville

Have a couple of cheap releases form ebay, they work fine. Half press to focus, full press to shoot. I can't find the exact item listed, but this seems to be a re-badged version.

I think you will find it is a Practika B mount

I am with you and would say that HDR is generally not needed, but I am sure aficionados would beg to differ.

I guess for myself evaluation of 'need' is directly linked to 'desirability' and as I am not a fan of most HDR, I don't fully see the need and am happy with the dynamic range available in a single shot from my k30. I do concede that there may be a few exceptions.

I have cheapish generic spare for my K-30 and have not experienced any problems.
It is well used and I have yet to see any difference in performance to the pentax original.

Pleased to say that pentax have honoured the 14th feb cash back closing date erroneously published on the amazon link.
Delighted it all went though so smoothly. Thank you pentax.

It is daunting to start with, but then so is photoshop. With a few tutorials or a good book it is not so bad and certainly a great package for free.

These latest images are helpful.

I don't think many people were saying that the IIs was not sharper ( be surprising if it weren't), I also believe that we did take David's word over which body provided most detail.

The debate was whether the original images illustrated this and the truth is that they did not.
This is not stating that the were not discernible differences between the appearance of the two sets, but exact point of focus, position etc were influences in this.

Like others, I was viewing the images on a high res ( 1080x1920) and calibrated screen, impartial and critical viewing could not support the claims.
The latest crops do illustrate the difference.

In the originals improved detail (like beauty) was 'purely in the eye of the beholder'.

I for one was certainly NOT having a go at David or the IIs. I just felt that supplied images did not prove the point and did not 'hold up in court'.
David's opinion is worth a great deal and valid, the test wasn't.