I'd recommend that you give both centre-weighted and matrix metering a try fo yourself to see which you are most comfortable with, personally I use matrix all of the time, taking photos in very varied lighting conditions, and have never really had any issues, I do shoot raw 95% of the time however which does give you more opportunity to recover shadows/highlights

Simon

One thing I forgot to mention about Live View is that it's a great tool to use for focusing for landscape photographs. Activate the "rule of thirds" grid & the selective focus point and you can achieve focusing for maximum DOF much easier than you can through the viewfinder, it's much easier to judge & focus at the hyperfocal distance too when not using the lens scale, if of course it has one

Simon

Hi Dan...because it does what it says on the tin, gives you a Live view of the scene in front of you so as you adjust your shutter speed to obtain the desired "blur" you actually see the effect it has as your changing it which looking through a viewfinder simply can't achieve. You also get live feedback on blown highlights, dark shadows using both the histogram & "blinkies"

Not talking about you personally but I read comments on forums etc from "old school" photographers who are adamant that the new technologies employed in modern cameras are of no use, I couldn't disagree more and don't understand the resistance of some...my theory is take advantage of all the functions the manufacturers provide us with whenever they might be of use, that also includes pre-programmed settings as I'm finding out on my new Sony RX100, many of them do actually work extremely well. The only time I don't use them is when they don't work correctly (electronic level).IMHO A camera is simply a tool to be used to create a photograph (or video these days), however you use it to do so doesn't matter in the slightest if you get the end result you wanted...sorry, sounds like I turned this into a bit of a rant Give Live View a go Dan, you may be pleasantly suprised

Simon

It seems like a calibration issue as different owners report theirs to be accurate or inaccurate by differing amounts...I use a £3.50 hotshoe bubble level instead

Simon

The electonic horizon issue has been discussed quite a few times before, quite disappointing that Pentax added such a feature & didn't make sure it was accurate

Must admit that I find Live View extremely useful and use it often, great for taking long exposure photos of waterfalls/flowing water, never had an issue with the brightness

Simon

Looking at your needs I'm not sure a prime would really work...have a look at the DA17-70, Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70, all would give improved IQ over the kit lens with the added versatility to cover the varied range you require.

Personally, whilst this could be controversial I've tried a few primes..DA35mm F2.4, DA40mm, DA15mm, FA50mm 1.4, 50mm A 1.7 and currently own the DA21mm - in my experience it's only really the 50mm lenses that significantly outperform the DA17-70 in any respect.

Just my thoughts

Simon

The F 50mm arrived today, well packaged and exactly as described, great transaction,

Thanks

I'm sure there's some Pr involved but one of the main interests in fullframe for many, me included, is the extra detail that the larger sensor captures...this is quite a good article explaining the pros & cons..

link


Simon

A PM is on it's way, don't want to get accused of advertising

Simon

Just posting to support the good advice you've already had..personally I see UWA lenses as more of a "speciality" lens for landscapes, I have the 12-24 but use my DA17-70 far more as the focal length suits my "style".

You're much better off getting out and taking more photos and then seeing which focal lengths suit you best, then it's well worth thinking about an upgrade to the 18-55 if you find you use it most.

Answered your poll...I put No, mainly because I offer them and think my prices are very reasonable

Simon