You can change the "Initial zoom display" in the Custom Menu, and go straight from 1X to 2X. I have mine set this way.

If by this, you mean 'one pixel on the LCD corresponds to one pixel on the sensor', then if I've done the arithmetic right, it's about 7X.

Calculated as follows:

The LCD is, according to the specs, approx 210,000 pixels.

Its vertical height in pixels is therefore x, where x is given by:

x times 1.5x = 210,000. So x is about 374 pixels.

The K10D sensor is 2592 pixels high, which is about 7x the vertical height of the LCD.

The magnifications in your list refer to the linear dimensions, not the area (easily checked by noticing that at 2X, you get to see a quarter of the frame).

So you can get 1/7 of the vertical height of the frame onto the LCD at one pixel on the LCD, to one pixel on the sensor. It's the same, of course, in the horizontal direction.

It does beg the question, what's the point having >7X magnification, I suppose. Have I made a silly mistake in my sums? I've assumed that the LCD shows the whole frame, and all of the sensor pixels are visible, which is probably not entirely accurate, but I imagine it would make only a small difference to the result.

I've never had any SLR but Pentax, so I'm not the most qualified to reply to this.

However, it does seem that there's very little buried in the K10D menus that I'd describe as 'absolute crap'

The slimming 'filter' perhaps.. but I can't think of much else. Ironically, I did need the feature once, but I did it on the computer, not with the camera.

There are things I rarely use, mostly concerned with viewing and editing in the camera, which I never do, but all the rest does seem to have a purpose, in a 'that might well be handy sometime' kind of way.

You'll never get the simplicity of a manual film SLR again, though, although I don't really believe that's a negative.

Baa.

Tell me about it.

My shopping list now includes:

- Nikon Coolscan 5000 (the next one up from the 5ED)
- DA 55-300 (with airshows approaching, this is getting to be a priority)
- 16-50 (F2.8 indoors would be very handy, as much for AF speed as anything)

... and the '20, of course, now.

At this rate, it'll probably be the '30.

Absolutely.

There were a number of things, including that one, about that review that made me think the '20 is even better than I already thought it was..

I've had quite a good look through it, and it does seem very positive indeed - and gets an unequivocal Highly Recommended.

If DPR has such an ingrained anti-Pentax bias as some would have you believe, how come such a positive review was 'allowed'?

I'm shocked that the question even arises.

Come clean, and at the very least, pay for the lens to be professionally cleaned and serviced. Alternatively, get him a replacement that's at least as good.

Guess which two people on this thread I'll now never lend a lens to, or knowingly buy from.

The thing is, Don, you take the trouble.

It comes over unmistakeably.

Amongst other things, not least your obvious engineering skills, it's why you deservedly command respect.

We might cross swords, you and I, we might disagree, we might misunderstand one another once in a while.

But you contribute, you consider, you think, you argue, and your passion comes across. And for 'you', I trust I could write 'we', and thereby include others of like mind.

It's astonishingly friendly, in fact, if you take into account the lengths a lot of the people here go to, to answer questions that are often extremely vague.

If a dyslexic 13 year old kid was to turn up here, with no experience of photography, nor any understanding of how much more likely one is to get a question answered clearly, if the question itself is specific and clear, it would be one thing. And in such a case, doubtless we would, as usual, bend over backwards to be helpful.

However, Mr Sanderson is marketing himself as a professional photographer, and as such, will discover sooner or later, that dyslexic or not, presenting himself clearly and marketably will be of paramount importance in becoming successful.

I have several years of (informal, not professional) experience, teaching Maths and Physics to dyslexic children of various ages. As you can imagine, for them to learn to conceptualise, and then articulate in writing, abstract semantic constructs can sometimes be difficult.

If there is one thing that contributes to their eventual success, it is the realisation that:

- people's ability to compensate for their disability is limited, and therefore
- they simply have to put in the additional effort required to learn to do what is hard for them.

Once they grasp this, and redouble their efforts, it is remarkable what they can achieve.