I used to use the focus at infinity, but I'm not convinced it gives the best result. You might get away with that at small apertures (F8 may be enough as you say), but much wider than that and you definitely don't - infinity is a lot further away than the aeroplanes, and the camera can definitely tell the difference.

Much maligned though Pentax AF is, I find that even on the K10D, AF-C is good enough for aeroplanes at a show. However, it's the one situation I switch the AF point selector to Auto.

Two reasons it works, I think:

a) it's very hard to keep the aeroplane bang on the centre spot when it's moving fast so my failure rate is very high using the centre spot, and

b) since there's nothing else out there to confuse it, the camera makes a pretty good job of selecting the right AF point.

I love the Pentax ergonomics; on the rare occasions I've held a Nikon or Canon I haven't liked the feel of it, but I'd be the first to admit that that impression may just have been that it was unfamiliar.

I'd switch brands if I could get the great Pentax ergonomics, as well as faster AF in low light. I have no idea if it exists though - I have a friend who's a pro that uses Canon, and he a) moans incessantly about the Canon AF and b) is very complimentary about Pentax.

I wish someone would lend me a D300s for a month. I'd love to see what the fuss is really about.

Colour for me, without a doubt.

The thing about this one, is that the mono treatment emphasises the foreground slate debris, which for me is totally not the only dominant element in the shot. So mono unbalances the whole to my eye.

The mono one also degrades the way the white puff of steam contrasts with the background and the clouds. This contrast is trivialised in the mono.

The icing on the cake are the elements of red, green, and blue, which the mono of course loses.

I like the colour one a lot; the mono one is unremarkable, and the popped one I hate - IMO pointless and in fact quite chavvy !!

Anyone who's tried to catch the instant where they cross, as you have in the last one, will know how utterly useless it to bang away with however many frames per second the camera can manage.

To time this shot as well as you have is no small undertaking.

You were clearly panning on the one crossing left to right, and it's interesting to note that even at 1/1000s, it doesn't quite freeze the one whose speed you've effectively doubled.

I'll be trying to get this shot next week at Farnborough. Two years ago I learned that 1/400s isn't fast enough with this technique and now you've shown that nor is 1/1000s.

Still, the timing is impeccable.

It would be worth brightening up the colours - I reckon there's a lot more to be made of this shot than shown here.

Thank heavens. I looked at this, and thought for a moment you were about to claim the first ever evidence for tripod-induced camera shake.

I'm fascinated by the vertical lines that bow outwards top and bottom. They're not straight, despite the clear absence of movement from side-to-side.

I'm wondering if it's a converging verticals effect.

It's actually the whole sensor (and as Hefty says, what it sits in/on).

I took the lens off my K10D once, locked the mirror up, turned the camera from landscape to portrait and back again, and watched the sensor as it gently flopped from one side to the other. It moves a surprising amount.

The sound it makes is a little more obvious when you have the front off.

With my own tin hat on, I thought I'd just contrast these two comments. What follows is an opinion, ok - of the postings alone, I might add; I have not the least interest in any of the personalities behind the postings.

That said, one seems to have an expectation of conflict, whereas the other seems to take constructive comments in the spirit in which they're given, and to me evidences a positive attitude.

This exemplifies why I think there seems in these parts to be such a dearth of carefully thought-out, constructive, detailed critique (not criticism).

People should be grateful, not defensive, if they receive more than three words of comment on one of their pictures. We all lead exceptionally busy lives, and to receive detailed, reasoned comment is actually to receive a great favour from the commenter.

So IMO, to post frivolously, with the expectation, and almost the encouragement of conflict and acrimony is to cheapen the whole process, and is to be strongly discouraged.

As do you

There is a tendency these days to react angrily to just about everything, no matter how slight.

It's a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality which I deplore. And it disappoints me to see the same tendency here.

I expressed an opinion about some pictures. It disagreed with yours. Certainly, in my mind when I expressed my opinion, was my other opinion (which I've also expressed) that there is too much gushing praise here. Some people agree with that, others disagree. This is the way on forums.

If people insist on the right to express their opinion as they like, they must presumably respect the right of others to express their own opinions in their own way.

To interpret what I wrote as 'slamming' or in any way a personal dig against you seems to me unreasonable. I disagreed with your opinion, but that was as far as it went. I certainly had nothing personal towards you or anyone else in mind when I wrote the post.

I'd say they're good. They're not great. With no cockpit visible at all, they're a bit impersonal.

Great is where they'd be sharper, and banking towards, not away.

Much harder, much rarer.

To be great, it needs to be better.

Just for calibration, most of Mike's aircraft work I like very much, but I'd agree with him that these aren't in the same league as what he showed us last year.

(Note to self: Farnborough coming up, must put money where mouth is. Fingers crossed....)