Another vote for 3 & 5.

I think the advantage of CCD is that it produces very natural colours, almost film-like in some respects. I recently bought a K10D that's now normally paired with an FA24-90 lens - there are a few pictures in another thread. Comparing with my K5(IIs, so no anti-aliasing filter), advantages are colour rendition/'natural' look (for landscape, buildings, flowers etc) and minimal post-processing apart from sharpening. One very obvious disadvantage is low light performance; others are IMO to do with improvements in the camera rather than the sensor in itself.

Thank you for comments. Now I have used it more, I'm making sure to check that the autofocus has locked on - it can hunt far more than I'm used to with the K5. I've also noticed some small dust bugs which will mean a sensor clean at some point. My K20 was the same - the problem seems to have been solved on the K5.

Enjoying this sunny weather - it suits the K10!

A few weeks ago I compared some old photos taken on my first digital camera – a 2004 Olympus – with similar ones on a modern equivalent. The colour rendition in particular got me thinking about CCD v. CMOS sensors, with the result that I bought a Pentax K10D (£95 from Ffordes) to complement my K5IIs. It’s currently paired with an old FA 24-90 that normally sits on my ME-Super. I haven’t done a side-by-side comparison, but what stands out about the K10D is the vibrant colours, rendition of sky/clouds, and subjectively natural (film-ish?) feel. I’m shooting in Adobe RAW, and noticed less need for processing than with the K5 – the exception is sharpening, where I have batch-sharpened everything to 75. The downsides are low light shooting – maximum ISO is 1600, and even 800 is slightly grainy – slightly less detail, and slower/less positive autofocus. So far very impressed with the camera, and while it has obvious limitations it's a useful addition for fine weather landscape-type photography.

Not for some time yet as I'm still happy with my K5IIs, and don't want anything bigger/heavier. My next purchase is likely to be a 4/3 EVF camera with a pancake zoom as a replacement for my Fuji X20, to get closer to SLR quality in a smallish package. If I find myself increasingly using this instead of the K5 on walks and holidays, the K1 would start to make more sense as an eventual replacement for specifically photographic outings, as I will have less concern about size and weight. Will see...

When I had a K20D I used a KatzEye screen with it, which was not cheap but worked extremely well and did not seem to cause problems with the metering. I think it was the 'extra bright' version. I agree with richandfleur though that my ME Super has a better viewfinder than either the K20D or K5 - except for a lack of dioptre adjustment that means I need glasses to focus clearly.

I have used a 17-70 as my main walkabout lens for maybe 4-5 years and on the whole I'm very pleased with it. I previously swapped between a 16-45 and 24-90. Overall I think the 17-70 has slightly better colour rendition than the 16-45, and I make use of the longer end quite a lot. I seem to get more underexposed shots with it than with other lenses, though as it's on the camera (K5IIs) 90% of the time that may be subjective. I've never had any problems with it.

Truckerathome - I haven't tried the 16-85, but would be interested on your views on how they compare.

I had a K20D for several years before replacing it (after nearly a year side-by-side) with a K5IIs. Some of my K20D photos, including 12x18" prints, are as good as any I have taken with the K5. Its disadvantages for me - taking mainly landscape and buildings - were principally autofocus and low-light capability, with conspicuous loss of resolution above ISO400. I didn't trust the autofocus, and replaced the standard focussing screen with a KatzEye split prism one. On the K5 I rarely use manual focus and have kept the original screen. But within those limitations the K20D is very capable, if slightly clunky to use compared with the K5 or even my old ME Super.

(I'm not tempted to replace the K5 with anything BTW).

At least it looks highly capable from that review, so possibly a worthy successor for the DA17-70 and a potential replacement at some point. I agree it would be interesting to see the two compared, along with possibly the DA*16-50 though from my viewpoint (having been spoilt by slightly longer zooms - I never had a problem with 28-70 pre-digital) the latter is too short as a general walkabout lens.

Thanks Daroni, It's interesting to see the physics behind 'optimised for digital'. In practice I haven't had any noticeable fringing or similar problems e.g. with my FA24-90 which gets (or used to get, it tends now to stay on the film camera) a fair amount of use at the widest setting, as well as the A24 which is excellent on the rare occasions that I use it. The worst fringing I have had has been with the DA17-70 with bare twigs against a bright sky, overexposed to bring out the colour of the tree.

Re. John R's point about only the centre of the FOV being used, I wonder if the phenomenon referred to is more noticeable when the sensor is the same size as the film?

Easy answer for me, DA17-70, which is my usual lens for walkabout photography (normally landscape/buildings); it produces good images, is water-resistant enough for what I want, and though I'd sometimes like longer reach it isn't a problem. I often take the 55-300 as well, though I rarely carry it on long walks and it may get used about 5% of the time when I'm doing a photo-oriented stroll around a specific place. I haven't ruled out the new 16-85, but it would have to be at least as good on image quality.

On my ME Super the 'equivalent' is the FA24-90.