1. Sign up for an online gallery - Phototbucket, Flickr, Ephotozine for instance

2. Upload your pictures

3. Identify the precise URL to your picture from the gallery site (they each do this in slightly different ways, but they all make it fairly obvious).

4. Paste the URL in between [IMG] and [/IMG] tags in your post. The forum software will then look up the picture from the site, and display them here. You can check it's worked with the preview button.

Or, of course, as some do, you could always upload them to PentaxForums.com and then post a link here. It's been done, but I'm not sure if it's an "approved" technique.

It would be nice if you could post crops of the pictures that show any particular features, like CA or distortion, so that they're obvious even at web resolutions.

Looking forward to them!

Hmm. Not knocking the Tamron at all.

But having seen some of the photographs posted there that supposedly support or refute some assertion about the sharpness or otherwise of some lens or other, I'd advise a little caution before using such evidence in isolation.

This is the thing - horses for courses.

No one, I think, is suggesting that if the objective is to go out and take tripod-mounted, low-ISO landscapes that will be blown up to A3 and hung on the wall, you wouldn't want the very best glass you could get.

But it does seem that there are quite a lot of people, and I'm certainly one of them, for whom in many situations, usability counts for as much as ultimate optical perfection, when the latter isn't the absolute priority.

Years ago I spent quite a lot of time up and down Lake District fells with my ME Super and Sigma 28-200 (which I still have, and remarkably is still in great condition and I'll never sell it). Lots of the pictures from those days, IIRC, weren't bad at all, and they're far better than no picture at all, which is what would have been the case if I'd had to cart a damn great rucksack full of stuff up and down them. Scrambling down from Helvellyn once, on to Striding Edge, comes to mind. I'm quite glad I was as lightly laden as I was...

Not disputing any of this - I've become more demanding over the last few months so I expect the trend to continue to the point where I start thinking of the 16-45 at least.

But I wasn't thinking so much the changing, more the carrying. Even an SLR at all can be a pain to lug about often enough, let alone several lenses as well. Not every trip, sadly, is exclusively a photographic excursion.

I use the Pentax SMC-FA 28-200 for about 75% of what I do.

Admittedly I haven't done any prints bigger than about A4 yet, but mostly my stuff is seen on the web if it's seen at all.

If the Tamron 18-250 is any good, then you'll find that it's possible to take the camera with you (since it's just one camera, one lens) to places you'd never dream of taking a camera to at all, if the alternative is two bodies and at least two lenses.

I would bet that this convenience will often - not always, of course, but often - outweigh the poorer image quality from a lens with such a huge range.

Curious about this.

I've held my brother's *istD with grip but that's a much smaller camera, so I can see why it might be better.

What makes the '10 more comfortable to hold with the grip? Is it just the height that fits the hand better or is there something more to it than that?

Fair point.

There's a fair bit of processing to do though, I guess, especially if you have auto EV on, so I suppose it's not surprising.

I can't see it as being the sort of thing I'd use often, but it's not quite so gimmicky as the slimming filter...

... which, as it happens, I did find a use for recently. Although I did it on the 'puter, not in the camera....

I still have the occasional poke about in there even now, 7 months down the line, and once in a while I still trip over something new. Like only yesterday I found out how to do multi-exposure..

Of course - there's no point when you have a whole forum full of people that can look it up for you.

What does the instruction manual say?