If you zoom to extend the lens to telephoto, that could double the internal volume - if it was soaking wet, wouldn't that suck water inside the lens and/or camera, despite the seals? Similarly if you zoom to wide-angle while it was covered in sand/dust, wouldn't that get caught in the seals and scratch the lens barrels?

Philip

I also like your image - it is an interesting and pleasing composition that contrasts the curves and ripples of the natural, with the straight lines and angles of the man-made. However, it needs two small adjustments. 1: A slight clockwise rotation so that the waterline (along the bottom of the sea wall) is horizontal. 2: Perspective adjustment to restore the correct shapes of the buildings that were distorted by pointing the camera downwards to include the stream. My preference is also to add a bit more contrast.

It might then look something like this -
[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/Reworked%20Photos/12370_1346482406a1.jpg[/IMG]
(If this is plagiarism, John will be able to delete it. )

Philip

Too much saturation?

Philip

This doesn't look like a gloomy day, so I would agree that they need brightening up. This is a processed 5:4 crop of #2 -

[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/Reworked%20Photos/13596_1346105709a1.jpg[/IMG]

Philip

Shake, rattle and roll? If all else fails, read the instructions:- see K-5 Operating Manual, page 17.

Philip

For me, the composition of #2 functions to focus attention on the vast depth of the scene. Starting from the pebbles - they, the tree, the three rocks, the hills and their reflections, all serve to funnel the eye into the gap between the hills to view the distant mountains. But my view is then pulled away upwards by that imposing dark cloud - for me that distracts and detracts from the sense of great horizontal distance that the rest of the image so successfully conveys. Still, it is always intriguing how people can view the same image differently.

Philip

Alan these are both wonderful images. In the second photo, the heaviness of the dark cloud in the top centre is a bit distracting to me. The interesting thing is that if the top is cropped away to remove it, the image then follows the rule of thirds - the water line goes along the top third line. The hills and sky are then in the top third, the tree + reflection middle, and the underwater stones/pebbles bottom. Rules are not the be all and end all of photography, but in this case it seems to improve the image for me. Having stated all that, the second image is my preference also of your two here! These are just my opinions, of course.

Philip

The link works OK without the full-stop at the end. However, the image quality comparisons start here -
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/18
- and they are up-to-date: you can compare full-size images from the K-5 directly with those from other cameras, e.g. 5d MkIII, D4 and D800.

I understand the call for FF, but I am one of those who don't see the need for FF - looking at the dpreview comparison images at typical sizes and viewing distances, I just don't think the slight differences are worth the extra cost to a pensioner! However, it might be wise for Pentax-Ricoh to complete the range with a FF sensor camera - as long as it blows away the other makes on cost and quality, just as the K-5 does (at least for still images)!

Philip

Don't know much about different locomotives, so I imagine it must be really impressive to see a working example of a Gresley A3, it being twice the size of the A4.

Philip

Can this really be true? Surely the APS-C sensor would "see" only the central part of the image circle of the lens, where its resolution is highest. And if the sensor resolutions (in terms of megapixels) are the same, and the image recorded (i.e. image content) is the same, then any difference might be apparent only at the high ISO values, the smaller sensor's noise becoming more obvious there. Even then, with a camera as good as the K-5, would the difference really be so clear that "anyone would be able to tell the difference, even at postcard size"? That seems to be a fantastic claim to me.

Philip