K30D will probable be the K-7 without 100% viewfinder and the magnesium body, beside that i don't think there would be a lot of difference.
The K300D would probable be a simplified K20D like the K200D was a simpler version of the K10D.

Yes it would focus during shots as best as it can, the problem is that it can only focus when the mirror is up so when making a photo it isn't focusing.
It needs the mirror because it reflects the light onto the AF sensor.

With the K10D I hardly use AF.C, with moving subjects I predict where it will be and focus there and wait till it's in focus.

Here is a little read about the grey card link

Setting two use tonemapping and setting one not I believe.

The grey card is only to get correct exposure and WB.
In truth the camera meters 12% grey but it's easier to print 18% grey since that's 50% lack and 50% white I believe.

But it doesn't do anything for the colours, just like monitors they also all act differently. Some display the colour red differently and so on.
With the K20D you even have settings to control the colours.
The calibration device makes an image on the monitor and reads that and correct till it is right.
With the camera you make a photo of a colour card. since the colours are know what they need to be you can make a accurate profile for your camera colours.

This a colour card used to make a profile link
And this a simpler version link
The last one is simpler and can so far as I know not been used to calibrate or make a profile. here is an explanation how to use the simple one link

If you go so far getting the white balance right then you also need a card to make a colour profile for the camera or else the WB is perfect but all the colours are still off, quite a shame if you ask me.

Since everyone says it's the white balance I've uploaded them into lightroom and use the WB picker, it measure the white so to say.
I've clicked on the on the wall on the right side of the door of the house with both images.

[IMG]http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk244/Anvh/image1-2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk244/Anvh/image2.jpg[/IMG]
It does make a small difference but surely not much so it's the change of angle.

As you can see you have far less reflections in the plants and the water with the first photo then with the second.

It even went faster


I've no idea if Opera makes it miss read, do you know?
They simply send you a file and see how long it takes before you've it, they can not do much about it I believe.
Upload speed is as you can see very constant so I think it's alright.

I've no idea about the speed package since it's my mothers house and I don't live their anymore.

it's on speed most likely
My father is thinking about getting fiberglass so that would be very fast, they need to redesign the test for that because 50mb isn't fast enough.


I did try Firefox for a while but you need widgets or how are they called to have it work probable, Firefox on his own is pretty empty.
Opera is a more complete package so that's why i'm using that and the new version Opera 10 with the new engine works very fast although it is still a beta.

The water probable is the colour you see in the first image, what you see in the second image is probable the reflection of the sky in the water.

Matt I think that most of the speed comes by using Opera since ie7 hardly touch the speed I had there.
Upload speed seems to be pretty constant here though, don't know what we are using here.