K30 might make sense if weight is an issue and a pentaprism is needed.

Hmmm... to be honest I couldn't say which is better/worse in your own tests... Interesting!

Hope you don't mind, I have posted your website link on the 'other' forum too.

But can you blast these more detailed images with more aggressive NR and be left with the same level of detail as you were getting from the K5?

Albeit it's a bit regressive to increase detail levels - only to have to knock them back due to applying additional noise reduction!!

But perhaps the extra detail at low ISOs is enough pay-off for some people.

I think checking the quality of prints is extremely helpful, more so than pixel peeping, thanks for doing the exercise.

I really like the look of the MX-1, but since the original Sony RX-100 has come down in price such a lot, I eventually buckled and went for the Sony. There is no doubt that it has better image quality.

However...

I'm not sure enjoy using it. The menus are typical Sony. It does not feel very comfortable to hold (the MX-1 felt much nicer). It's smaller than the MX-1, but is still quite heavy, so neither camera is really a model you could pop in your shirt pocket.

And I'm finding it hard to get used to the lack of a folding rear screen. Holding the camera in front of your face to take a shot doesn't feel right to me. Not on an expensive camera anyway. Bracing a camera against your body and looking down at the screen is just much better, especially for street shooting.

I bought the RX100 from Amazon, so I could return it - would it be possible to do the same with the MX-1 so I can try them out side by side, do you think? I think I can take a temporary hit to the wallet

Tamron 17-50. Does everything you could ask of a standard zoom. But if you want silent af go for the sigma or Pentax versions, which are a bit more / a lot more expensive.

The Pentax 50-135 is also a very useful lens.

No purpose whatsoever? What about being compatible with a full frame camera, when they launch one.

However I agree it doesn't seem *likely* this lens is FF.

Interesting. There's a lot more colour noise, but that's easier to deal with, and there's quite a bit more detail in the k3 shot too.

It's true that the 18-55mm kit does best in the middle of the zoom range, and around f5.6-f11; and I found this was true of the Sigma 10-20mm too. But many zooms are pretty good throughout the range of focal lengths and apertures (Tamron 17-50mm).

Blackcurrant jam and Wensleydale or Caerphilly.... mmmm

But marmite and cheese - for me it''s like mixing crack and heroin... seriously moreish.