Well, there's also the K20D secondhand, which would be more than the K10D, but less than a new K-r. Lots of people here moved to the K20D from the K10D, so there'll be lot of people to comment on that option.

I went from the K10D to the K-5 recently, so I know nothing about anything inbetween.

Hard enough to squish it against the sensor by the look of it.

Hopefully it's that rather than the aftermath of jamming the end of the blower against the sensor a little overenthusiastically.

There are all sorts of options.

You could start at about £150 (at a guess) for a second-hand K10D body, or go all the way up to the K-5 at about £750 for just the body.

Hard to advise though, without an idea of your budget and aspirations.

No worries, apologies for overreacting.

Please don't tell me that's also a Pentax mug.

Not about the lens, no, that is very clear.

The thing is, the term 'measurebate' has, in these parts, a very specific meaning that is extremely pejorative, and can be construed as insulting if used of any normal person.

For those that perhaps haven't come across it, it was coined first, I believe, and certainly used in all seriousness, by someone that, I suspect, never realised the ironic and spectacularly accurate use of English he happened upon.

The individual concerned writes a blog that is notorious for its staggering negativity about all things Pentax, for its selective and inaccurate reporting of test results, and for its consistency in failing always to see the wood for the trees.

The term 'measurebate' is an obvious contraction of the word 'measure', and another, and implies a slightly unnatural tendency to measure, pixel-peep if you will, to an extent that loses any notion of real-world photography and seems to afford the perpetrator considerable pleasure.

Used by its original (I believe) coiner, it's quite funny, since the blog in question is exactly as the word suggests, and is often so ridiculous as to be almost other-worldly.

In other contexts, it's like calling someone a ****er.

Which many people, myself included, think the blog author is.

I *so* would never use this technique any more.

Although I would concede that the crap you'll blow in there will be smaller than that monster.

Well it's definitely something on the sensor. It doesn't look anything like any of the pictures of sensor stain I've seen, and it does look very much like a hair, or a fibre.

The dust-removal system was virtually useless in four years of K10D use, and although I expect it's better on the K-5, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if you can get stuff on there that it won't shift.

It only needs to be slighty sticky, and the Arctic Butterfly (search the forum for that term) won't shift it, and there's no alternative to a wet clean. Lots of stuff around here on how to do that - don't be afraid of doing it yourself.

No critique is ever worth one percent of the affirmation that comes from getting your photo published, so 'grats for that.

That said, although I like the pose, and I definitely agree that the crop improves the composition, the face lacks a certain sharpness that would absolutely clinch it for me.

For candids where the expression counts for most of the impact, I find even a hint of out-of-focusness a bit distracting, and it takes the edge off this portrait for me. I've looked at it in the thread, in a separate browser tab, at full size, and any way I look at it, to me it still looks just a touch out of focus.

I realise there are plenty of soft portraits that work very well, but this one is all about the face, and the expression, and there's nowhere else to go.

Apart from that, it's very good. It might be worth a little selective sharpening, not round the edges where you might get a halo, but just on the bits the eyes are drawn to.

And 6/7 dwarves aren't grumpy either.

So if they're not happy or grumpy, what then? Mildly peeved? Moderately cheerful?