Understanding exposure and how to meter, fine; I'm all for it.

But a camera metering system that "understands" a scene and gets the exposure right very quickly without muchneed for intervention? That sounds great too! IF it works ;P

Great shots Mike. I see you remembered to prefocus on where the jet was going to be... ;P

I've tended to avoid pattern metering, because of the aforementioned problems that arise. I've noticed it's much better on the K30 than, for example, the K10 though.

If they have been able to come up with a metering system that works better and is more reliable, though, I'm all for it; and if it works, I will use it!

As Bill said, if you suddenly spot (for example) a bird flying against a bright sky, it's a good thing if the camera can quickly work out how best to meter for that scenario, because there often isn't time to apply the right compensation or metering mode yourself before the bird has vanished forever.

Looking at the enhancements Ricoh have made to the AF, perhaps we'll get a better idea when the new cameras are being used on subjects in low light, or moving subjects such as birds etc. Maybe the testers have had limited access to those sorts of subjects so far.

It would make more sense to consolidate around a 35mm sized sensor system than have two formats (one of which is eyewateringly expensive, is huge, and has a comparitively limited lens line up), wouldn't it?

- Wanting FF isn't just about 'moar megapixels'. Some mobile phones can beat my K30 in the megapixel race. Does that mean they offer better IQ? Of course not, sensor size matters. By the same token, my K30 appears to be bettered by the Nikon D700, in IQ terms, despite having more pixels. IMO of course. To me it does look like sensor size does make a difference.

You'll say 'Aha, then what about the 645D'? Again - size, expense, and lens line up.

- For most of us I agree this isn't about 'needing' FF. APSC is really really good. Most of us including me are happy with it. But FF offers something some people want - better image quality (assuming the use of decent lenses) - much better high ISO - narrower DOF available - etc... I'm not going to argue with these people, it's their choice entirely.

Ask her to stand in a doorway or by a window to make use of the lovely soft overcast light we're having today (in Derbyshire at least!)

Maybe also zoom out to 50mm for a more flattering focal length, or even better, pop on a fast fifty and open 'er up to about f2!

I've only had really bad moire once (ironically on the K10D :wink and it was hard to imagine cleaning it up easily in software without destroying the image.

It was on some steel grating/mesh, and the image was basically covered in coloured stripes. Something about the spacing of the mesh just didn't suit the K10D's sensor

Well by definition this does not apply to you, nor does it me - since we have selected a system knowing that it does not offer FF. But have you noticed that we are in a minority

NOT that I am suggesting this is the only or even main reason people tend to choose with Canikon.

But reading the forums on Dpreview and ModelMayhem, it's certainly [b]A[/b] reason

But Nikon's attempt at mirrorless has been even more pathetic than Pentax, so that's hardly surprising ;P

But I don't think Pentax should go after the same market already served pretty well by Fuji/Sony/Olympus.

Good idea but a kludge! Automate it please, Ricoh!

Is it really a tilt-shift effect though? Or does it just create a larger field of view?