I've used Giotto glass on my K10, K20, and K5. I like them. I loaned my K10 to a young man and he told me he broke the LCD. When I got the camera from him the glass cover was shattered but the LCD was fine. I wonder what would have happened without the cover. Maybe nothing. Maybe something.

My Pentax IstD did not have an LCD cover and when I gave it to my sister after two years of constant use she said, "My god, look at the scratches." I'd never noticed but she was right. I gave her my K10 a few months ago and the LCD looked like new.

I'm using LR4 upgrade. My computer is a DP35DP motherboard with an old dual-core processor and 8Gb or RAM but LR4 "seems" to run faster than LR3. I am using dual monitors with absolutely no problems. In fact, the second monitor is more responsive than it ever was with LR3.

Yes, LR4 has some bugs. Perhaps all the bugs are worked out of the original LR and those who are concerned can use that. Me, I'm sticking with LR4.

I live in Oaxaca, Mexico, and when I leave my apartment I have the camera with the 18-135 lens. I have prime lenses which I love and use for certain applications and I have other zooms that go on the camera at other times but for my general stroll-around town outtings it's the 18-135.

I also have my 35mm f/2 in my pack for interior shots in churches.

In my opinion, it is. A friend asked why I'd ordered a K5d and I replied that I'd be happy with a new K20d but I couldn't get one. I was wrong. The K5d is a fantastic camera for me. Dynamic range is great, high ISO is a whiz, it foceses faster and more accurately in low light than my K20d. I doubt I'll use it much but the live view actually works. I even like the electonic level. Not that I always use and and not that I now never have to level a horizon but if I have the time, I use the level.

I am absolutely delighted I made the switch. The only complaint I've read has to do with movies and if I wanted movies I've buy a movie caemra. I wish I cuold get a K5 without movie mode. Actually, I'd like one without all the JPEG menus, too.

I've had my K5 for only two weeks but it's a very impressive camera. I started with DSLRs with the IstD and I really like having two dials available. I also like Pentax having a button for ISO up by the shutter button.

But, my first SLR with interhcnagable lenses was an Exacta in 1963. That was before zooms and for two years I used the 50mm that came with the camera. It waw actually a very good lense but of course we didn't "pixel peep" back then. We made a print and if it looked good, it was good. I was young then, and agile, so I zoomed by running back and forth and I remember climbing on an oil rig and taking shots of the guys working. Now I'd be stopped by age and attorneys. Both are a nuisance.

My advice, get the K5 and the kit lens. It's a good lens and perhaps I don't deserve, or need, a great lens. Then, take photos and have fun.

My sister brought me my K5D on January 30th and I went to visit her in Huatulco. I was very happy with my K20D but I wear my camera and after two years of knocking aroubnd it's beginning to wear.

I could not imagine the K5 being much better than my K20 and I was wrong. The dynamic range is a hoot. I shoot in raw at 80ISO, when I can, and the dynamic range is awesome. The metering for exposure is, in my limited experience, fantastic. I shot inside churches, on the beach at noon and at the lighthouse at sunset. Exposure was excellent.

I find my raw shots out of camera need very little before conversion. A little clarity or vibrance in Lightroom and perhaps a highlight or shadow recovery but not much.

I'm still getting used to some of the new buttons and old buttons that have been moved. After two years my fingers knew where the buttons were on the K20 without thought.

I like my K5.

Every picture you've taken, digital, was shot in raw. You've been allowing the very limited programming in the camera to edit and convert the raw files to JPEG. Now you're considering using an editing program on your computer. I use Lightroom. Consider, if you set the preferences in Lightroom you can load the files, convert to JPEG in a few seconds and you're basically doing what your camera does now. Of course, the odds are you'll say, "Wait a minute. On this one, I want to recover those shadpws and zing up the contrast a bit and eliminate that purple-fringing and set the white balance."

If the laptop is running the 32-bit Windows 7 then you can use the Pentax raw codecs. For the 64-bit Windows 7 Pentax won't do it. Microsoft has raw codecs that work up through the K20d. I don't know aobut the K7 and K5. I have also used FastPicture codecs and they were fine but you have to pay now.

The first time I compared JPEG and raw would have been in 2003, I think. When I edited photos I saw no difference in the results between the two. Two factors to consider. The cameras I was using were P&S so all the photos were taken in basically decent lighting.

In 2005, I compared against, after moving to a DSLR and switched to shooting raw only. First, shots inside old churches, inside public markets and other shots with less than decent lighting did much better with editing in raw. Also, even between 2003 and 2005 the capabilities of the software changed significantly and have continued to change. I will ofter go back and rework a batch of raw files from 2005 when I get new editing software.

My 17-70 was terrible. It would not get a focus lock at the long end or even close to it.

I bought the 18-135 and I couldn't be happier. It focuses great throught the range and the results are all I expected. The range is great for my daily uses.

My only negative comment is that the focusing is so fast and quiet I often don't realize it has focused.