Couple of comments. First, only the 1st and 4th of these look a bit static - I certainly wouldn't say stagnant.

In the others, there's lots of blur in the wheels, which conveys the movement, and especially in the 2nd and 3rd, the subject seems quite crisp, so I'm not clear what the focusing problems were (unless these were the exception). The softness in the last one seems to be a depth of field issue, not an AF issue.

To blur backgrounds, you need to be moving the camera with the moving subject, so that it is in the same place in the viewfinder all the time. Then you use a relatively long exposure, so that the camera movement blurs the background.

This isn't possible, of course, when the subject is coming directly towards you, as it is, mostly, in these shots.

It's a lot less of a problem for the AF to capture something crossing your field of view at right angles (if you're panning with it), than it is to track something moving directly towards you - since the camera-to-subject distance isn't changing so quickly.

I'd now use Auto-AF point selection for a subject like this. And AF-C.

Suppose you did this, though, and got results that you weren't happy with.

You'd want to make sure that it wasn't a duff lens, wouldn't you?

Very much agree with this.

It's precisely why I'm so reluctant to criticise in the gallery.

But having a thread associated with each picture then seems unbalanced, if all that is said is positive. And then there's the risk of inferring criticism if there are no comments.

I don't know. The concept of a gallery where the artist nominates his or her own work, with no criteria for acceptance, and no rejection, just seems a bit strange to me. Critique threads seem so much more real, somehow - I know where I stand there.

Noted, George, good point.

If I may change the subject a little, does anyone else, like me, find themselves feeling rather reluctant to say anything negative about any of the pictures in the gallery?

As George says, there are lots of good ones. And it's nice to be nice about them.

But some aren't all that good. Unlike critique threads, though, where comment is implicitly invited by posting, I find myself thinking along lines like "well, he obviously likes it... or he wouldn't have uploaded it to a 'Gallery'... so who am I to say anything."

There was one picture where I had to comment, and I PMed rather than commenting on the picture's thread.

Thoughts?

Have you explicitly linked your Forum Id to your PU membership number?

Had a poke about in the eBay help pages.

This one was quite illuminating:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/keyword-spam.html

At risk of proving my own point, if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I haven't said anything at all about either of you being wrong.

If you think I have, then you are choosing to read things into what I wrote.

This is a public thread, and as such is open to comment from anyone. If you want no one to comment, then you should keep the entire exchange private.

The trouble with the written word in general, these days, is that:

- People often don't write what they mean. They think they do, but they don't.

- People often don't read what is written. They think they do, but they don't.

- Even if both of these have taken place (it does occasionally happen), people often do not mean the same thing by the same phrase.

The difference between "I can accept" and "I will accept" is very marginal, without elaboration, and a misunderstanding is very likely. What one person thinks is foolish is not necessarily obvious to another.

The only solution, especially on an internet forum, and especially when financial transactions are involved, is to make all efforts to be meticulously precise.

Then ask questions to clarify, before making assumptions about meanings.

And especially before reading intent into these assumptions.

I'm a little surprised that they didn't warn you, but only a little - and only because there are hordes of listings for generic items, usually from far eastern sellers, with any number of cameras listed in either the title or sub-title (the ones I see say things like K20D K10D K100D - usually for things like wrist straps).

Maybe it's the difference between the title and the sub-title, but I had no idea that there were rules governing what you can put in them, let alone what the rules were.

So their action seems a bit harsh, if this is the only reason they've acted - especially if this is a first offence.

That said, it is best if the title says what the item is, not what it isn't. I do get sick of having to be increasingly creative in my eBay searches, to pull back the stuff I want, and exclude the crap I don't.

Either way, it's completely pointless to threaten eBay with the cancellation of your account.

They won't give a damn, and might even laugh.

[quote="JohnMcD"]The lens was ex demo so the front element was not mint as described, it's fine but not mint.[/quote]Please could you elaborate on this point specifically.

"Mint as described"... described where?

You seem to imply that there is some imperfection about the front element.

Or am I misunderstanding you?