Perhaps I should have said a 28mm DA Limited. And why not? There's room for the 77mm FA and the 70mm DA Limiteds isn't there?

But if you'll give me a second bite at the cherry, how about a 28mm counterpart to the 35mm f2.4?

Been said many times I'm sure but a 28mm f1.9 Limited is needed desperately.

I was in a similar quandary until yesterday. I've been a K10D user for over four years but certain aspects of it made me think about upgrading it. Firstly, the weight was starting to ...er get me down especially after carting it an a couple of lenses around all day. Secondly, it was suffering from severe and inconsistent back focus. In the end, I had to keep it in debug mode all the time and switch between +120 um and +230 um correction depending upon which lens I used.

I was browsing the Cameraworld website the other day and saw that they had some stocks of the K-r going for £399 again so I wandered into the London branch and had a play. Focus seemed fine and, at that price, really couldn't refuse.

Having had a play around with it today, it's certainly a departure from the K10. The body is definitely smaller and lighter, which is what I wanted, and can't really tell any real difference in the image quality yet. But the autofocus certainly seems better in terms of FF/BF. I don't think I'll need to use the global focus correction for most of my Pentax glass (the Sigma 10-20 could be another matter though) but it's probably too early to tell.

So it all comes down to what you want out of your K20D upgrade. If there's a specific problem then see which one tackles it best or else save a bit more for the K5. For my needs, the K-r looks like it's going to do everything I want.

Adrian

I've been doing a fair bit of pet photography over the last couple of months and bought the 70mm Ltd to help with it. The 70mm has good handling and is lightweight - particularly good when you're rolling round on the ground trying to get on the same level of the smaller dogs.

This is a recent pic of my sister's dog, taken a few weeks ago using the 70mm.

[IMG]http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee195/uncle_nobby/Scorch_01-1.jpg[/IMG]

Adrian

I never really saw the need for a grip either but I've been taking more and more portraits recently - pet portraits in the main - that the handling of my K10D in the vertical format was becoming a bit of a pain. When Unlocker put his offer for members up (thanks to Danny and Fiona for the great service ) I jumped at the chance primarily for the vertical shutter release.

I used it for the first time properly yesterday, taking a hundred and fifty odd shots of my brother in law's pair of dogs. Now I've used it, I simply don't know how I managed without it. It makes vertical shooting so much more stable, controlled and comfortable especially when fast moving subjects are concerned. I'm not saying it's the most indispensable accessory Pentax has ever produced - I could have managed OK without it - but it just made things an awful lot easier.

Adrian

I did a first holy communion a month or so back and used the 43mm Limited for all my pictures. Going through the shots at home, about 10% of them could have done with something a bit wider and another 10% with something longer but the 43mm was just about a perfect choice for the majority. I recently bought a 70mm, largely for portrait use, but I don't think I would have had time to change lenses even if I had it then so I'm not sure that it would really have helped. It would have been too long for most of the shots I wanted.

With perfect choice, I would have gone for a fast zoom in the 28-70 range - the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 would have been about ideal. If I was doing a lot of weddings or event photography I'd seriously consider one. Failing that, the 43mm does most of what I wanted.

Adrian

I think the beauty of a place like this is that it represents a safe environment in which to experiment and to receive constructive comments from a broad spectrum of users. I don't suppose Belinda was proposing her picture as a new direction in which the photographic art should be moving; just that she had a photograph which she was trying to improve and was seeking the advice of a circle of friends on her attempts.

When I first started in photography, I loved the idea of 'soot and whitewash' mono landscapes. But, after a few years, I grew out of it when I worked out what I wanted from my photography. Everyone needs to learn and I wish there were places like this when I was first starting.

Adrian

I picked up a DA 70mm from Microglobe for £299 at the weekend and I've seen it even cheaper from a few online shops. Still, saving £35 with a free SMC filter would have been tempting had I known yours was on offer just a couple of days later.

By the way, it's a super lens and I cannot imagine anyone regretting buying one whether new or slightly used.

Adrian

Hi Johna

I've never used Photomatix but the results tend to be somewhat on the overblown side. Whether you like that or not is a matter of taste.

If you want to see what, if anything, HDR can do for your photography you could give a couple of free programs a try. "Easy HDR" has a freeware version obtained from http://www.easyhdr.com/download.php whilst the imaginatively titled "QTPFSGUI" is free and open source and can be had from http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/download.php

In terms of what would complement PSE, I wouldn't dismiss the idea of HDR software, but a good RAW converter can do wonders at bringing out underexposed areas providing some of the advantages of HDR without the hassle.

But try the two suggestions above - well worth the money!

Adrian

Keith

The results I was getting by turning on colour management in Firefox 3 were so bad that I was trying to rationalise what might be the reason for it. One theory I had was whether it was because people were posting images that looked good in a non-colour managed browser and Firefox 3 was simply showing the images as they really were. But then I realised that a fair proportion of users here would be posting images through a colour managed browser such as Safari so that immediately shot down my own theory.

I think I've got to the bottom of it, though, at least as far as the Linux version are concerned. In the Windows version of Firefox 3, there appears to be no need to set the path to your .icm profile in the "gfx.color_management.display_profile" preference, at least not on the wife's Windows Vista PC. Firefox just finds it as a matter of course if you turn colour management on.

The behaviour in the Linux version seems to be completely opposite to this and, if you don't set the path to your .icm profile, you end up with truly horrible results. I've now set this, restarted Firefox, and results are very much improved. This may be of use to the other Linux users on this forum.

Adrian