"None of them is out of focus" might be correct.

Exif data:
A - 300mm 1/100s
B - 160mm 1/25s
C - 55mm 1/6s
D - 55mm 1/8s

If the shots were hand-held, these shutter speeds are likely to lead to images that show camera shake, because they are too slow. A simple rule is always to think of relating the shutter speed to the focal length of the lens. E.g. 300mm - 1/300s, 160mm - 1/160s, 55mm - 1/55s. Then select the nearest shutter speed or faster on the camera. E.g. 55mm - set to 1/60s or faster.

Philip

Yes, Adrian, when you come across these tricky light scenes remember to try the HDR module in your K-5 - you have paid for its inclusion, so you may as well give it a chance and, possibly, save yourself some work!

OK, so HDR outputs only a Jpeg file but, although there is obviously more data to play with in Raw files, some Raw shooters do tend to overstate their case. Jpegs from the K-5 contain loads of detail, so they can be tweaked quite extensively in PhotoShop (or similar) and still retain very good quality for viewing in at least 16 inch prints or on screen.

It is just important to remember a couple of simple rules - always keep the original and process only a copy of the file; also, load and save as few times as possible and with the Jpeg compression set to minimum.

Most photographers should know that Jpegs can be edited, as the extreme example below shows - it started from above as a Web-quality 87kB Jpeg, and it was processed in PaintShop Pro X4. From the K-5's HDR module, there would be an already quite reasonable image to start with, and any required fine tuning would be able to work on the vast amount of data retained in its high-quality 10MB Jpeg file.

[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/Reworked%20Photos/DNGJPEG1.jpg[/IMG]
Cheers.
Philip

This is an example of a scenario in which you could take the risk of ignoring "always shoot raw" and put your trust in the capabilities of the K-5's excellent electronics and firmware - in this case the effective HDR Capture feature.

Ensure that the Expanded Sensitivity and Highlight Correction settings are both turned On. Set Multi-segment metering and the lowest ISO value of 160. Set the file format to 4 star 16MP Jpeg. Tick Auto Align and set HDR Capture to Auto (this gives a natural realistic image). If you are hand-holding the camera, Shake Reduction should be On, and keep as still as possible during the exposure. When you press the shutter release the camera takes 3 shots, then combines them into a usually pretty good HDR Jpeg image, which still retains plenty of data for tweaking on computer.

Alternatively, of course, if you want to do all the hard work youself, you could bracket several Raw exposures, then process them in HDR software on the computer.

Philip

It does seem pointless.

The only exception might be if a photo is posted for comments and its Exif data has been stripped out - it might then help someone who wishes to comment if they were informed of the equipment and settings used for that photo.

Philip

For what reason or purpose?

To be fair to Pentax, the statement about the SR system is in the beginning of the actual User Manual (the first few pages of the book being the usual health & safety stuff and the list of contents), in the section entitled "Before Using Your Camera"!

However, I do agree that it would be helpful to have that notice clearly displayed on or in the camera box. Pentax should also instruct the vendors, so that they can inform potential customers of the sensor movement. When I was comparing cameras in a store of one national retail chain, I asked what the movement was inside the Pentax and no-one had a clue.

Philip

We usually view a photograph when it is transmitted by a monitor or HDTV, or projected onto a screen, or displayed as a print. Each of those has its own limitations of characteristics such as resolution, contrast, dynamic range, etc. (as do our eyes). So I ask this question out of curiosity -

Would a person with normal vision, when viewing any of those from the optimum distance for the image size, be able to perceive any differences in quality between the same images of the same composition recorded by a high quality APS-C camera like the K-5 and by a full-frame dslr, assuming the use of similar quality lenses?

I suppose the question could also be - With cameras such as the K-5, when using good quality lenses, have we already passed the point at which the camera technology is capable of exceeding the image quality that is perceptible by the human visual system, when viewing by any of the available methods of display?

For many photographers the answer should one of the serious considerations, along with the advantages/disadvantages of the apparent shortened depth of field, and the low-light noise levels, in their choice whether to move to full-frame. Then, taken together, they can decide if the differences are enough of a perceptible improvement to justify the great increase in expense, as well as the extra size and weight, of a full-frame system.

But still, there will always be some people who simply want to own what they regard as the best!

Philip

In the K-5 Operating Manual on Page 17 it states -

"Shake Reduction (SR)

Shake Reduction (SR) on the K-5 features a PENTAX original system which uses magnetic force to move the image sensor at high speeds, compensating for camera shake.
The camera may generate some operating noise when it is shaken, such as when changing the composition of a picture. This is normal and not a malfunction."

If all else fails, read the instructions!

Philip

This must be one of the photographer's worst nightmare scenarios - inadequate ISO and aperture, and snails that can Usain Bolt the 100 metres in under 10 days.

Philip

Now that we are getting on to bringing aircraft down, some of this scaremongering is becoming just plain daft. And where is the evidence - how many camera batteries have catastrophically failed - how many have even just failed to work properly?

Probably like millions of other people, I have bought compatible batteries for several cameras and laptops - always from British sellers, they have always been CE marked, and they have saved me hundreds of pounds over the past several years. So far - and I am prepared to take the risk of typing this without touching wood - no problems.

If I had thought about every possible risk involved in photography generally, I would never have started this hobby, and I would just have stayed at home. Come to think of it, that wouldn't do either - most accidents happen in the home. As it is, I will continue to look for ANY bargains - if they don't work I've lost only a couple of quid and if they do, as is usually the case, I will carry on having lots of fun using them.

Now that's the last one from me for this thread, otherwise it is almost certain that I will be at serious risk of keyboard induced repetitive strain injury.