You may not be aware that there's been a lot of angst in these parts concerning the alleged softness of the K10D's JPEGs as produced at the camera's default settings.

This has never been a problem for me as I like the natural rendition of both the colours and the edges in the JPEGs straight out of the camera, and if I need to crisp up the final version it's easy enough to do.

But in this context, this comment of yours is most interesting, and it would be good if you could elaborate a little.

I'm not at all familiar with the D200 (nor indeed with any non-Pentax SLR for that matter); it just seems to be the one the K10D is compared with quite a bit.

I must admit I'd be quite interested to play with a Nikon or a Canon in roughly the same capability bracket as the K10D for a day or two, get an idea of what they're like.

Interesting that the winner of this award last year was the D200.

http://www.eisa-awards.org/awards.html

Can't speak for the light, since I don't really have enough experience. It's very even and shadow-free, and does a superb job of isolating the subject from the background, which is presumably intentional.

The photo itself is cute, but somewhat over post-processed for my taste.

Or protect, defend and preserve.

Not sure here is the best place to evaluate the two viewpoints.

The thing about taking pictures of aeroplanes in flight is that you have a lot less control than you do when the subject isn't moving.

It's easy enough to comment on depth of field with a landscape for example, and no excuse for failing to control it; similarly with exposure - there are grad filters, polarisers, the opportunity to move the camera position, or wait for better light, all of which give you control over how the end result looks. Again with portraits, different people have different preferences over how lighting should be, and within those criteria it's easy enough to comment on expression, detail, background, sharpness and all the rest.

These aren't more or less difficult to do well than aeroplanes, but it's a different problem. You have a lot less control over where you are, and can't move around much; and you're judged more on split-second timing, uncompromising sharpness and visible detail, and you're likely to get a lot more duds.

With the Oshkosh pictures you posted, it seems to me that you got the timing pretty good, and the exposure mostly a good enough compromise, although it's very difficult to to get good belly detail as well as top and side, in light like you had.

The fact that the F86 was so bright saved the one where it was in formation with the P38 and F22, since its brightness allowed you to see detail all over. That one was interesting to me because of the way the P38 would have been flying quite fast, and the F22 quite slowly, to achieve their formation, but unless you're something of a flying nut you probably wouldn't be very interested in that.

The other thing I'd note is that the aeroplanes weren't doing anything very interesting except just flying past, so there was little in the way of a sense of drama. To capture this as well as getting everything else right is very hard, and often not possible unless you're right at the front, or standing on the control tower balcony - and you need much longer lenses since when they're turning or doing aeros they tend to be a lot further away.

So in summary, it's difficult to find much more to say than has already been said - you controlled the sharpness well; exposures were Ok, and there was probably enough latitude in the darker bits to make it worth a bit of PP to get some more detail out of them. If the F22 on the knife-edge had been the other way up it would have been astounding, not just good, but that's outside your control. The Mustang was superb, the best of the lot for me, even though if I was being picky I'd have preferred more prop movement. It was nevertheless beautifully lit and sharp, and interest from the gear on its way up too.

I guess I'd have liked to see some wing-tip vortices from high-alpha turns, some shock diamonds from the afterburners, and more formations, but they're all harder to do well.

Scan.co.uk are doing Corsair 4 GB (10 yr guarantee) cards for about £30 inc VAT, and they throw in a reader too.

http://tinyurl.com/2s3pyr

Personally I'd never go for cards bigger than that - 600 or more PEFs on one card at 8 GB? I don't think so.

I was very excited when I took my first photos with my K10D back in January this year. They were my first photos with a DSLR ever. So it's nice that you share these.

I'd had a Sony compact for a while which I still have, and is fine within its limitations, but it doesn't really hit the spot, somehow, whereas the '10 very much does.

As you go on, I'd make a suggestion for when you have photos that you want critiqued:

Critique them yourself first, as ruthlessly as you can. Then mostly, people's comments won't be a surprise. When they are, it often makes more difference to what you do, than when you really already knew what they were going to say.

Of course, even when you did already know, it sometimes still helps you believe what you knew already.

You gotta run outa money** sometime.

Then it'll be mine, all mine, I tell you... bwah ha hahhhh

Edit... **or space in your house. Ex gear freak, my ****.

Is that twice you've done it to me????

Come to think of it, it's probably more than twice.

You can go off people, you know.