[quote="I"]The only thing I would expect from a competition judge is the ability and willingness to articulate why they like or dislike the pictures in question.[/quote]I was quite careful with my wording in this comment above.

I would draw a slight distinction between, as a judge, giving a reason for why I might like or dislike a picture, and offering suggestions for how to improve it.

How to improve it might be obvious, of course. If I didn't like a picture because of a distracting element on one edge, I might suggest cropping.

But even if I can explain why a picture doesn't quite appeal, it might not be at all obvious (to me) how to improve it. In this situation, I would quite understand if someone didn't feel able to suggest such improvements.

An example would be portrait lighting. I can usually see effects of light that I don't like, and I'm capable of describing what I see, and why I don't like it. But I have virtually no experience of studio work, and I'm completely unqualified to suggest how to go about setting up the lights to eliminate the aspect that I don't like.

So if I was judging such a picture, I might comment on the element that detracted from the picture for me, but I wouldn't try to say how to fix it, because it would be beyond my competence to do so.

What I don't like, is when the judge doesn't go to the trouble of saying why.

"It doesn't quite work for me" doesn't work for me.

I think it's terribly important that people don't feel this way.

One of the most marvellous things about photography, is that the impact of a picture is largely subjective. If you like or dislike something about a picture, for whatever reason, then you have every right to your view.

There are things that are objectively true or untrue about a picture, and there's lots to discuss, agree and disagree about, but that has nothing to do with whether someone's entitled to like it, and say so, and why.

If you're the judge, you've earned your right to set the criteria by which the competition is judged, and it's perfectly fine for those criteria to be your own. The only thing I would expect from a competition judge is the ability and willingness to articulate why they like or dislike the pictures in question.

And this has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether those reasons fit some imagined level of photographic level of 'educatedness', whatever that might be.

The day we get to the point that we're so collectively up ourselves here that only the so-called experts feel able to offer an opinion, is the day I'll be out of here.

I don't know (I don't have one), but I wouldn't bother trying to, for the moon. Without a telescope you're right out at the limitations of the lens and sensor resolution, so the slightest lack of sharpness just ruins it. The focus has to be right in the middle of the "confirmation" range; there needs to be no shake, and no haze in the air.

A couple of years ago, we'd all have been oohing and ahhing at shots like this, but like the Olympics, things move on. So to get the best possible with the kit you've got, there's no point handicapping yourself, would be my feeling.

It won't look as good when it's actually full, either - the texture you get when the light is slightly oblique (as you have it here) makes it look much sharper, even though it isn't.

Not bad. Not as crisp as some of the Bigma shots I've seen at the same (more or less) focal length, but better than I've had at 400mm. Reduced a bit and sharpened, I expect it would look better still.

I'd be really, really interested to know if the results with the TC and that lens are as good as with just the lens on its own, even taking into account the extra magnification required.

As I've said, with mediocre glass, I've only ever had worse results with a TC than with the bare lens. But these are both top notch, so I'd like to know if the result is different.

Thanks for confirming this. I thought I'd read as much, but wasn't sure.

Well, the '10 has SDM support.

Personally I couldn't do without both e-dials now that I'm used to having two so I wouldn't go for the '200 over the '10 on those grounds alone.

But the small size of the '200 does appeal, as it did with the '100.

How's the dynamic range of the '200, compared with the '10?

I've been really pleased with mine on the K10D.

There are some K20D pictures of a rugby match over at PentaxForums.com taken with one, too, that aren't at all bad.

For the price, I think it's a real winner.

This result is really great news. The best you could have hoped for.

The conclusion: any focus issue you have with that camera/lens combo is entirely your fault.

Congratulations - this means that for better photographs, you don't have to rely on crappy service departments, moronic fob-off call-centre 'operatives', money for extra kit, or anything at all...

... except yourself, and practice.

As I say, the best result possible.

Oi!

Them were damn fine extension tubes, them were. Nothing improper about them at all.

As any fule kno, Molesworth, that's what a reversing ring is for. You attach the tubes with it to the front of the lens, and presto, a handy lens hood which doubles as a insect-contact early warning device.

Me too.

Given that even the virtually omniscient Matt doesn't know for sure, it's a worry.