This is only true for candids if you're close enough. Which you have control over for the groups, the cake, and the speeches. But for the rest of the time, you can't guarantee to be where you need to be. So I can see why Pete wants something longer.

I used a Pentax SMC FA 28-200 almost exclusively at a wedding recently, and it did the job very well. They're about £100 on eBay and come up quite a bit.

Candids at a distance bring their own difficulties, though, not least the invariable presence of distracting objects around the main subject, which you simply cannot move, since the picture has to be taken right now, or the moment has gone. So composition becomes hard. Flash is no good at very long focal lengths, and ruins your ability to be inconspicuous. And as John says, long lens + low light = long exposure and/or high ISO.

Allegedly so. But it would be worth having a good search here - there have been lots of threads recently about which flash to choose for the K100D and K10D.
P-TTL is simply where it fires a flash before the actual exposure to enable it to do its metering. If you look carefully, you'll see a flash in the viewfinder, when you take a picture with the pop-up flash. This is the pre-flash. It then fires again for the actual exposure, which you don't see because the mirror is up.

TTL is where metering takes place during the exposure itself, and there's only one flash which you don't see in the viewfinder.

It's very easy to remember: you have to have P-TTL to get through-the-lens metering with the K100D (and indeed the K10D). Any other TTL gun will not work with it in TTL mode, only in manual, and auto if it has a sensor on the flashgun itself.

Very nice. Difficult light, often not much you can do about it; some detail visible on the undersides even so.

How did you find the AF-C? It was obviously Ok in this one, but did you find it reliable? Fast enough?

I'm now itching to get out and do some more aeroplanes - haven't been to any displays this year, and it's not looking like I'll get to any.

I really ought to see about getting a dedicated film scanner. I have some quite nice stuff buried away amongst my negatives. All film and manual focus - none of this nancy AF stuff that makes it so easy [just kidding ]

The static ones are nice too, in the other thread - it's lovely to see people taking such care of these vintage aircraft. But it's the flying ones that are hard.

Awesome story of the P38F. I heard about it, didn't realise it was flying. Fantastic.

Well, I haven't quite persuaded me, either

Indeed. I'm considering it as a second body rather than a second '10.

Smaller, cheaper, ISO 3200, AA batteries, better with old lenses... not a bad complement really.

Not at all, sorry if it seems that way. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I've said nothing at all to diss the K100D. I realise that it's a very good camera, and I've listed a number of things that might lead one to choose it rather than the K10D.

If I sound hot and bothered, it's because the K100D has been described as "simple", and the K10D as "something to aspire to", but no one seems to be able to explain why this is, and I get frustrated when I don't understand something.

And if no one can explain why it's so, maybe it shouldn't in itself be cited as a reason for choosing the K100D. There are other reasons, I know, perfectly valid ones.

Edit: didn't know about the physical size difference either till redbirdpete mentioned it. That's a good reason too, if you want small.

I know he didn't. So please explain. What is it about it that's simpler than the K10D other than the scene modes? Ok, the 100 doesn't have a couple of the exposure modes that the 10 has (sensitivity priority and 'shutter and aperture priority', whatever that is), but if you don't use them - I haven't yet - then they aren't going to be intimidating.

But apart from that I'm really struggling to understand how the 100 is comparatively simple.

I'm sorry, I still don't buy this. No one has explained how, other than the scene modes, the 10 is somehow "aspirational", whereas the 100 is "simple". George has made some good points, ie, used actual facts, but I must be being very stupid, cos I still don't see it.

I understand the fact that it's cheaper so lets you spend more on lenses. This is a compelling point if budget is very limiting.

It also has ISO 3200 (but not 100), so if you need low light usage then it has a slight advantage. Its batteries are more available, and it doesn't have the stop-down metering issues that the 10 has.

BUT - if these advantages are in the corner of the envelope where it would make a difference to the OP, I would argue that simplicity is not what he needs - hand-held, low light photography with M series lenses, in parts of the world where there's not mains power to charge up the Li-ion battery is not what I'd call simple.

To counter these marginal advantages, however, the 100 (and the Super) also has a pentamirror viewfinder rather than a pentaprism, which is not as bright, AIUI, and apparently its shake reduction isn't so good.

I'm now very glad that I didn't join this forum until I already had the K10D. I suspect I might have had a lot of advice telling me to get the K100D. Knowing what I know now, this would have been wrong for me. Maybe it's wrong for the OP too.

But do scene modes teach you any of it, or just fool you into thinking you're learning it? Don't know the 100 well enough to know what else is simpler than the 10.
Absolutely agree, a good argument, as I said.
True. But as I said, if he's been using Manual and Aperture Priority well enough to enjoy the results with film, I don't see that lack of confidence as an issue.
Good point. I'd forgotten that.
Not at all arguing with that, but not quite the point unless budget constraints are a bit part of the issue. The 10 is a very fine camera for the money too, I'd contend.
He has the good sense to turn up here and start asking questions before lashing out a huge wedge of cash. Unlike my decision process which was not terribly intelligent, really. It was basically, "ooh, Pentax have gone to 10 MP", swiftly followed by "Ooh, shake reduction", and, very ironically indeed, "Ooh, it works with K and M lenses". Finishing up with the DP Review "Highly recommended (just)", which I thought probably made it pretty good since it wasn't Nikon or Canon. It also didn't occur to me that I'd end up spending more on lenses than on the body as soon as I did ...

So I'm not at all convinced about point 6

I don't understand this advice. If he'd had a P&S for the last x years, fair enough. But if he's had an ME Super and he's used to that, he's basically had Manual and Aperture Priority, and has presumably learned to use them.

So what use to him are all the scene modes that the K100D has?

I moved to digital straight from the ME Super (ironically from the Super A before that) without anything in between and I'm very pleased that I went for the 10, not the 100.

Budget constraints are a good reason for saving a bit on the body and getting some glass instead, but I don't at all buy this argument that says you should have to outgrow the K100D before getting the K10D.