Would this not also be a characteristic of a completely flat field?

Well of course that's true regarding the checking, and indeed I did.

However, as you'll see from Direct.Gov, it also includes all the postage costs, and is supposedly both quicker and less likely to get snarled up in the system.

All the "for official use only" bits on the form did get filled in and stamped in front of me, so it may well end up on a some sort of "already checked" pile when it gets to IPS.

For the difference between £8 and what it would have cost me anyway to send it SD, I thought it was probably worth it, and 9 days turnaround was a lot quicker than I was expecting.

Pleased to report that the mug-shot I took of myself for my new passport was accepted - I didn't print it myself, but I did do everything else.

The walls in my house are nominally white, but under ambient light come out looking light grey, so I just sat on a chair with the remote control F, and took pictures until I got one that I could bear to keep.

Then I did a bit of minor PP, followed by a lot of fiddling about until the dimensions and facial proportions matched the regulations, and made a JPG file with four copies and suitable borders.

Took it down to the local photo printer, who charged me an exorbitant four quid to print them and clip them out.

Pretty painless, and the passport came back in 9 days.

£77.50, though, plus £8 for the Post Office's 'check and send' service.

The absence of quick-shift is worth considering, before going for the admittedly substantial saving.

It has a long focus throw, the 55-300, which means that AF can be very slow if it has a long way to go.

In particular, if you're using it for moving objects, and you lose the AF point, the lens will quite often hunt to infinity (or worse, the close point). It can then be very slow to find your subject again.

In both these situations, quick-shift is a huge benefit, since you can whip the focus ring round to approximately where you need it, and the AF then has very little to do, so it's quick.

I'd hate to lose it. It would make using the lens at airshows enormously more difficult.

Snopes comes to the rescue once more...

Quite - which is why I can't see why you wouldn't get the same BF/FF issues (if they're there in the first place) as with ordinary AF.

Well yes indeed. Judging it visually you wouldn't suffer from errors in the AF system.

I'm fortunate enough to have pretty good eyesight, but I don't think I can judge the focus point better than the AF system can - especially with long lenses where shallow depth of field makes it all so critical.

Is this really true?

Given that you get focus confirmation when focusing manually, why might the actual point of focus not be different from where the camera thinks it's focused, and for the same reason as with AF?

I notice you live in Wiltshire, so if you're up for a bit of a drive, you might consider visiting one or more of the smaller airfields that aren't too far from you.

In particular, I'd recommend Compton Abbas, near Shaftesbury. Not only is it a particularly attractive field, but there's often lots going on, including aerobatics, and has the added benefit of having a restaurant where you can sit outside and be easily close enough to the action to photograph landing and departing aircraft.

And if you were to venture east instead of south, there's White Waltham near Maidenhead, which is also a busy field with lots going on. It's where I'm based, so if you fancied a trip, I could show you around. PM me if you want to set something up sometime.

Naturally this offer extends to others too.

Yes you have, and I appreciate your taking the trouble to answer. Of course, Gwyn was right to draw attention to my failure or others', to comment on the earlier thread. It was just a little unfortunate that I happened not to see that, but I did see this one.

I'm not making any comments about anyone's morals, and nor would I expect anyone to do so - as far as I'm concerned, there's no moral issue to answer. Personally I think it's a shame that there's a perceived need for anonymous posting, since accusations of biased judging are IMO entirely without foundation. But I can see that some would think it a good idea, and an anonymous PhotoBucket account would solve that.

I'm slightly troubled by the notion that someone can learn how to operate a dSLR, take pictures good enough to enter in competitions, participate in an internet forum, but still not be bothered to learn how to resize and post their own images, but I suppose they shouldn't be disenfranchised.

I wish the new format well, and as I've said, I'm always grateful to those that are prepared to take the time to organise this sort of thing.

If this is aimed at me, then I confess that I do take a little exception to it.

I didn't respond to the other thread, since for whatever reason, I hadn't been aware in enough detail of its content. And now I thought I was both attempting to be constructive, and also acknowledging that I might be a little late into the game.

If you think I'm objecting, perhaps if you read what I said again you'll see that I was suggesting and questioning, not 'really objecting'.

Yes, I take this point, although I'm not yet sure if I agree. In particular I'm uncomfortable about having pictures online in an account over which I have no control, but thank you for clarifying.

It would make sense not to want to organise any more competitions due to the amount of hassle.

Declaring that the hassle makes you not even want to enter them smacks of throwing toys out of the pram.

I'm grateful to anyone who's prepared to take up the administrative mantle of organising something of benefit to all. But I find my gratitude wanes somewhat when genuine questions and suggestions, if perhaps not sufficiently researched, are treated in this way.

I'm not sure I'd feel Ok about entering a competition if questions about its organisation are treated so stroppily.