30x16 is in fact about a 1.25 crop factor (actually 1.27) over 36x24 when you measure diagonaly so both are right really.

If this works with the 16-45 that gives a wide semi panoramic of about 20mm which is interesting for those of us that like landscape work. My guess is there would be a 'switch' between 'normal' APS-C (which would then be 11MP) and 'Panoramic' (at 14MP)

1 is my favourite.

Is it my monitor or does the sea look slightly pink in these shots?

Also I think you need to look a bit more at horizons. Generally it is not good to have the horizon in the midlle of a shot. most pictures work best with the horizon at 1/3 (if the focus is the sky) or 2/3 (if the focus is the land/sea) up the picture. Exceptions include reflections and also your pier shot, where having the 'horizon' (actually the straight line of the sea shore) half way up works beautifully.

2 & 4 are basically very good but the horizon is too near the centre. In both cases try cropping the sky by 30-40% - it makes quite a difference!

The latter

Not much. The DG has special coatings on the rear element to reduce reflections from the sensor, and is an update of the DL.

There is also DG APO Macro which has apochromatic elements which makes it a better (and more expensive) lens. Generally it is regarded as a very good lens for the money (many rate it better then the Pentax equivalents, however I might get thrown off this forum for sugesting such a thing). I am very happy with mine (which is the older APO Macro Super version without the DG tag). I've not noticed any problems with using a non DG version and you may be able to get the DL for rather less money than the DG

It seems Photoshop CS2 has a specific function for this. For an application to astrophotography see
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/PS_HDR.HTM

Maybe those who have forked out for this overpriced (IMHO) piece of software can tell us more about it.

All the Pentax DSLRs fitsthe later angle finders: refconverter A or M - but they have many of the characteristics of hen's teeth in terms of ease of location and price. Much easier to locate is the Olympus angle finder which also fits and can be had for about £30-40 on the secondhand market.

I use the 460MG 3way head almost exclusively - I don't really get on with ball heads, but then I shoot mostly macro and lanscape. However one useful trick with a 3 way head is to take the time to get both tripod and camera level, and then you can slacken off pan and/or tilt when following moving subjects, thus keeping the camera level at all times.

I contacted Epson by email and got a reply in which they just repeated the requirements as stated on the web site (ie 2GHz). So I guess that means an Epson A3 printer is out for me. So it is either Canon or A4. Might look at one of the cheaper models - can't go too far wrong as they cost the same as a set of inks...

Thanks for those replies. I'm tempted by the Epson - but according to their spec sheet the A3 printers all require at 2GHz processor with windows XP My 3 yr old laptop has a 1.5GHz centrino in it (along with a proper ATI mobility radeon 9700 graphics module and 1.25GB RAM) therefore I think I have a problem. Anybody using either the 1400 or the 1800 on an older machine?

Otherwise I may have to stick at A4 and go for the R800 - which only asks for 500MHz - or move to Canon. There are also the HP printers of course but they alwys used to be well behind Canon and Epson for print quality.