Even £329 (let alone £600 which is blatant profiteering) for the 540 is a very substantial proportion of the price of a camera.

How the flashgun can cost more than half the price of a K20D/kit lens combo is beyond me. There aren't even any moving parts other than the switches.

I count my lucky stars to have got the Samsung version (two of them!) at £180 when they were available

Hmm. Two areas, each with the same two functions (showcase, and C&C), the only difference being where the hosting takes place.

This is a consequence of the way 'Your photos' was used for both Showcase and C&C before the Big Forum Change, and then after the BFC, we had the Gallery as well, so now there is twice the scope for confusion. We also have a lot more people passing through, so unwritten conventions are harder to maintain.

It may seem disrespectful to suggest that images should be posted elsewhere, but I really don't think it is - all those of us suggesting this are trying to achieve is a clear distinction between genuine requests for C&C (or other discussion of an image), and an area to showcase what we feel is our best work. Both of these are perfectly worthy objectives.

However, I feel it is disrespectful to react argumentatively to critique that you don't like.

This disrespect should, in my view, be met with equal opprobrium from the powers that be, and this doesn't seem to be the case.

Personally, even though the Gallery is used by people who don't use the Forum, I can see no reason why we shouldn't establish a firm convention here, to use 'Your photos' for C&C, and the Gallery for Showcase.

It's still perfectly possible to post really good pictures for C&C, of course - but at least then there's an understanding that some people may not like them, and still pay you the compliment of taking the trouble to say why.

I've stopped too, for the same reason.

Actually, I think this is a really good idea in general.

In Paul's case, I think it would much better showcase his undoubted skills, as well as provide a greater coherence for his project, if they were all exhibited online somewhere together, with suitable commentary, rather than being drip-fed into the C&C section.

In which, impressive though many of them are, it does become for me a case of 'yet another B&W portrait', which somewhat reduces the impact.

Do you mean photogenic?

If so, I'd agree. But I find that squirrels aren't that easy to get really good pictures of, for some reason. They jump about, spoiling the composition, and making it hard to focus.

These pictures tell a story, for sure, but they all suffer from the same problem - they're out of focus.

I'd set up the bait again, and work a lot harder at accurate focusing.

I think it's more that the Ts&Cs are wrong.

I know the signature isn't exactly the most important issue in the world, but in view of some of the discussions recently about what is/isn't Ok, it might be an idea for the powers that be to give them a bit of a once-over.

From their site...

[quote="Fizi"]Goods ordered from Fizi.com are shipped securely from our Hong Kong logistics facility, not the United Kingdom (unless otherwise stated)"

"Customers are responsible for the customs and import duties that may be applicable with their order depending on their country/region. Please ensure that you fully understand import laws before placing your order with Fizi.com."
[/quote]So add VAT and duty to the prices you see.

If this is the case, I think it might be something of a false economy.

The 55-300 focus ring has a long way to go from close focus to infinity, and unlike some of the other DA lenses, feels (when focusing manually) like there's a fair bit of weight to move when doing so.

So it's quite slow to focus if it has a lot to do.

Being able to manually rotate the ring close to where it needs to be makes an enormous difference to its usability - if it's already nearly there, focusing is acceptably quick.

So without quick shift, I could see the lens being quite annoying to use at times.

[quote="Ts&Cs"]20. Signatures in gallery or forum postings, may only contain your name. Any other information, such as quotes or URLs will be edited by our moderators or one of the Pentax User team. The proper place for this information is on your portfolio page.
[/quote]Must admit to a bit of a chuckle at this, given the way so many people have a list of kit in their sig that's often longer than their posts.

Incidentally, the other day I asked the forum dev team to consider a feature whereby users could opt to suppress the display of sigs, avatars and other images.

Only, I hasten to add, to speed the display of forum pages when using a slow GPRS link.

I couldn't see any evidence of the haloing that's characteristic of oversharpening, and the detail in the feathers is quite natural looking. So I can't see any oversharpening myself.

I think what makes it look slightly suspect is the way the foreground stands out so dramatically from the background. In fact, my initial reaction was to suspect flash, or even that that the pigeon had been placed on a different background from the original. But of course, if you say it's just one exposure, and the PP as you say, minor, then fair play.

If that's just natural light, then it's very unusual, and very well captured.

In your case, John, you'd have to concede that it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.

I had an 80-320 for a short while, and was quite disappointed with it. Then I got a 55-300, and found it much superior.

If it fails, can the pin drop into the hole even if you don't rotate the locking lever to the locked position?