Sounds very much like it.

Does it come with a manual that sheds any light on the subject? ( )

It's certainly proof of something.

Happy New Year to you Ben, may your inimitable brand of insanity continue to entertain us all in the coming year.

The folk over at Pentaxforums.com have been going nuts about the new dSLR bodies for weeks.

Weeks and weeks and weeks.

Ben stokes them all up, then retires to his armchair and doubtless has a good chuckle.

Please let's not sink to the same depths between now and the 24th, or whenever it ends up being.

All I know about it is that, other than actual ability, it's lenses that will enable me to take the pictures that at the moment I can't, not the new bodies.

This is the thing. It's not till after you have it that you realise.

Just to put the "stunning" amount I've spent in perspective, I saved for two years for the K10D. A few quid here, a few quid there, and to everyone that asked me what I wanted for birthday or Xmas, I asked for a contribution to my dSLR - which didn't even exist when I started saving for it.

And like you, I was just going to use the kit lens and my old A-series lenses.

Then I bought one long telephoto, for considerably more than the difference between the 10/100 bodies, and the perspective became clear. If you'll pardon the pun. And since, I've bought a few second hand lenses on eBay.

The other reason I think it's better to get the body you really want, is that its resale value will be much, much lower. Whereas lenses hold their value very well, so mistakes are easily rectified.

I've heard this argument often, as a reason for getting the cheaper body.

It's certainly the case that good lenses are a better investment long term, since ultimately they make a much bigger difference to the quality of the photos you can take.

However, I don't believe that the latter really justifies the former, unless you're so strapped for cash that one lens is all you'll be able to afford for a very long time.

In reality, I suspect most people's experience will be similar to mine - getting my first digital SLR (the K10D in my case) was so exciting, that I simply had to have a lot more stuff

So the difference in price between the 10 and the 100 turned out to be a very small proportion of the total, and I'm very happy now to have the 10.

So although it's true that the savings on the body might be a significant fraction of a lens, and although it's true that lenses, long term, are more important, in practice, I wouldn't skimp on the body for the sake of half a lens - save up a little longer and get both would be my recommendation.

I was in this position - twenty years on and off (mostly off, recently) with film SLRs (ME Super and Super A), and went for the K10D. I haven't been at all disappointed, and, more to the point, knowing what I know now I'm very glad to have made the decision that I did.

There's a feature-for-feature comparison here.

If you're not intimidated by a few more options (that you can completely ignore if you want to), then get the 10.

Or if your budget can stretch to it, one of the new Pentax bodies that are (heavily rumoured) to be announced next month.

Ok, so why is it green-eye with cats?

On a good day, I used to be able to do about one stop better than 'rule of thumb' in my film days. With the K10D and now a fair bit of practice, I would expect to get mostly good ones at 50mm and 1/4. albeit probably not blown up to A4!

But that does mean the whole 'elbows in, breathe out, relax, squeeeeeze' thing. Which isn't always convenient.

Holding your breath in doesn't help, I believe, since the effort of holding it introduces tension, and a tight strap probably doesn't help either.

In my limited experience, it's the being relaxed that reduces the shake, not the trying to be still, which can make it worse.

I think the first thing to test would be whether the results you achieve are actually different with it off.

So pick a subject, focus carefully, switch the SR off, and take ten shots (hand held, obviously) of your subject, all at a shutter speed of, say, 1/4 second. Because of the inevitability of getting a different amount of actual shake each time, you want to pick a shutter speed that would pretty much guarantee blurred photos without SR. Shoot with the best technique you can.

Then take a brief break, so that the practice you've had will wear off, and repeat with SR on. Again, try to ensure your technique is as before. You can't guarantee it to be identical, but taking lots of shots will hopefully compensate for the variability.

Then inspect the shots and see if you can tell the difference.

If the SR is working, I would expect the two sets to be very different.

When SR works, it's brilliant, at least on the K10D. This was taken hand held at 1/3s, and it's not at all a one-off.

Not sure if it's the SR, but it is normal.

It is my considered opinion that they are both a great deal better looking than you.