You'd think this would follow, but I'm not convinced that it does. Or if it does, the reasons are not usually revealed.

Viewfinder is an interesting character in these parts. He appears from time to time, usually to say something quite cutting.

One is left wondering why, but there's no obvious reason, and it remains one of the forum's unanswered questions.

He provokes a "hmm" in me when he posts. It would be nice to have a little more flesh on the bones, but one can't have everything.

In this case, I think he is touching a nerve - I get the impression there is a groundswell of opinion that Pentax is becoming overpriced. But I had a little play with a KM the other day, and although I didn't really like it, I wouldn't describe it as an abortion.

I'm not surprised, but I don't really know anything about rotary-wing regs.

The rules that govern whether you can fly in class A airspace, though, are nothing to do with being over a town.

Any multi-engine requirement is separate, and is just there to make it a bit less likely that people will crash in the city.

On a Special VFR clearance over open ground (of which there's loads at the western end of the Heathrow zone), there's no multi-engine requirement, even for fixed wing.

There's lots of controlled airspace in the UK. 'Class A', which is the most restricted, and includes the area around Heathrow and central London, normally requires a suitably equipped aircraft, and a commercially licensed pilot.

If you have one and are one, respectively, then you can go anywhere at all in it with a clearance from the relevant Air Traffic Control unit.

There's also a thing called a Special VFR (Visual Flight Rules) clearance, which allows non-commercially qualified pilots to fly, subject to route and other conditions, in the Heathrow Control Zone. This is approximately rectangular, is centred on Heathrow airport, and extends about 10 miles north and south, and 15 miles east and west.

There are other rules which effectively prohibit fixed-wing single-engine aircraft from swanning around over Central London, since they are required to be able to glide clear of built-up areas in the event of an engine failure.

If you enter the zone without a clearance, you're in trouble.

And if you get close enough to the commercial traffic for them to delay it or re-route it, you're in big trouble. They don't shoot you down, but the fines are enormous.

Typically, of course, people that bust CAS do so because they aren't where they think they are, so they don't have the right ATC frequency selected anyway. So the threatening message would never get through.

Funny that - I wondered for a moment if it was astroturf, since it was so short, but rejected that idea since the bottle was sitting too low. I didn't look closely enough to work it out properly.

Nice illusion - I guess that adds a modicum of interest, but still not enough for me.

I think the grass isn't really pristine enough, for the statement about litter to really have the impact you'd want.

And the pattern created by the shadows isn't interesting enough to make the contrast a feature in its own right.

It was worth a go, but it doesn't really come off IMHO.

No, it looks like both props have been feathered, and he's about to touch down completely safely after a perfect practice engine-off approach.

For slower revving props 1/400 would be a bit fast.

1/250

Also 1/250

1/320

For faster spinning props you can get away with a bit faster:

1/350

1/500

Anyone that's taken pictures through a light aircraft canopy while doing the flying too will know how difficult it can sometimes be to get the composition just the way you want it, while avoiding canopy reflections as well. Quite apart from trying not to let the camera smack you in the face if the air is rough.

These are really terrific, Dirk, great to see some more of your pictures. I wish we had visibility like that in the South of England.

Any canopy reflections are really very minor - you've done a great job controlling them.

I don't think they're oversharpened either - they look a lot better at full size rather than after the forum software has done its resizing. And at full size, they're even more striking.

I'd be interested to know what heights (and altitudes) you were at for the different shots.

My scepticism about the alleged problems of using SR on a tripod is probably not news to many, so I won't repeat it all again (though if you've somehow managed to miss my occasional rants on this topic, have a look here).

What I would say, is that if you're concerned about your results with a particular lens, stick it on a tripod, use one of the delayed release modes (in any of which SR is automatically turned off regardless of where you have the SR switch), and take some pictures of something with lots of fine detail, at different focal lengths and apertures.

I'd also take some pictures of something very simple, with well defined edges, using SR off on the tripod, and releasing the shutter with no delay, with your finger on the button, so that you can get used to what camera shake actually looks like at a pixel level.

Compare all these carefully, with other lenses if possible, and arrive at a reliable conclusion.

You're right - there are lots of variables involved in getting sharp pictures, and the only way of getting more confident that (as is usually the case) it's the user, not the kit causing any problems, is to eliminate as many of the kit-related ones as possible.

Obviously not interested in attractiveness to the opposite sex, is he?

I can see it now...

"You've got a big one?"
"Ah. Tattooed on your arm. Erm, nice. Bye..."