I like it even more now. Perhaps the blues are a bit saturated, but I don't think there was ever a need to put a different sky in.

In the northern hemisphere, we have 'the man in the moon' - the darker patches look like a face.

From the southern hemisphere, the moon appears at a different angle (as you've shown it), and it looks (I think) like a rabbit.

This is what it looks like from here:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Misc/IMGP5519-1brsmsh.jpg[/IMG]

Neither the man nor the rabbit is that clear in big pictures like these, but I think they're pretty obvious just looking at it with the naked eye.

This is very true.

The trouble with 'real world' shots is that they hide a multitude of sins. Stopped down, with lots of depth of field, you might not notice a real problem with the lens for a while. And most of the time, of course, problems with 'real world' shots are operator error.

The trouble is, the actual problem will always make itself unambiguously apparent at the worst possible time, and it will have been preceded by a period of uneasiness, where you can't be sure one way or the other.

They should employ people in their customer service department that are intelligent enough to distinguish between people that can't find the 'on' switch, and those that use equipment carefully, and take the time to learn about it.

I still think they're weasels until proven otherwise - I've been fobbed off so many times over the years that I just have no patience with it any more.

It does show someone's tackle well, though.

I bet you always won at Top Trumps, too, when you were a kid.

Seriously, it is very nice. Just that bit better than I can do with 400mm. A shade crisper, without the need for too much messing.

Very nicely timed, too - not quite full, so you get that texture.

Reminds me of my trip to Oz last year. It was very strange seeing the rabbit, rather than the man, in the moon.

Weasels.

I think the lens (and camera, probably) manufacturers must hate the internet.

A 400mm lens on a Pentax dSLR is 3.44 degrees horizontally across the frame.

The moon moves at about 360/(24x60x60) = 0.0042 degrees per second, which as a fraction of the frame is therefore:

0.0042 / 3.44

On the K10D, the frame is 3872 pixels wide, so the moon moves at

(0.0042/3.44) x 3872 = 4.7 pixels per second.

So 1/5 of a second exposure will give you movement blur of less than a pixel on the sensor.

You probably don't need an exposure as fast as 1/60, but much slower than a 1/10 and you're chancing it.

The Mark 1 18-55 vignettes a bit at the wide end. How does the Mark 2 compare?

Hey, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you..

Of course, it's not an issue at all, as it stands. It adds to personal choice, so I'm all for it.

Only for the grownups.