Well create one then. But you asked for a "sticky".

Personally, I would prefer the list of "sticky" threads not to extend too much, and especially if they're not about photography, since they displace the other threads in the forum listings.

You can create your own personal "sticky", by simply bookmarking a suitable dictionary site.

Such abbreviations are easily looked up elsewhere, and my view would be that such tutorials have no place here.

Type ROFL into Google, for instance.

As it happens, the first entry in the list is http://www.urbandictionary.com/

Maybe bookmark it...

Yep, and the 10 rather than the 100 at that. It's all very strange. I had to exhort him to get it out of the box, charge the battery, make sure the camera and the lenses worked. He didn't seem all that keen. Not the world I live in, I have to say. He's a bright guy, though. If the bug bites, don't be surprised if he comes up with good stuff here in due course.

So far, having told him to line up the red dots; that the smaller the F number, the more light gets in; the difference between AF-S and AF-C; and how to get the latest firmware, I can honestly say that I've taught him all he knows.

I don't expect that to last long, however...

Well, would you believe, the aforementioned mate went out to Jessops today and bought a K10D, the 18-55, a Tamron 70-300 (not sure which one), a rucksack-type camera bag, a couple of Hoya UV filters, and a small SD card, all for about £800.

It all started when he saw the "K100D + 18-55 for £300" offer. We got talking, and apparently his fiancee applied some influence and now look what's happened.

Well the Sony Alpha is quite a lot cheaper than the K10D. And it comes out as "Highly recommended" at DPReview. I know that people here don't seem to like DPReview, but presumably the camera isn't a complete pile of poo.

I was hoping for an unemotional comparison, not a general slagging. As a K10D owner, it's not as if I need to be convinced - I just don't have any experience of non-Pentax SLRs.

Optically bad, do you mean, or handling?

Sorry about the sacrilege in the thread title.

A mate is going on his honeymoon at the beginning of June, and wants a DSLR to take with him. He's never owned any SLR, and I've been suggesting the K10D or K100D, since he's very keen on in-body SR.

The Sony Alpha has this too I believe, and is similarly specified to the K10D, superficially at least. It's also quite a bit cheaper.

Is there anything obvious and compelling that might help him choose between the two?

Thanks for replying. I appreciate that.

If that means it's one exposure not two, then I'm impressed. If the model actually threw the shoe, which is not what you say here, then I'm even more impressed.

I understand that it's not the camera. I understand that it's also not the lens, unless you want to enlarge to enormous sizes, which is not at all what I'm talking about.

I guess I'm talking about what is achievable opportunistically, rather than with studio control.

Since John Riley offered some very helpful feedback on some portrait work I did, I've taken his advice and looked at a lot of portraits. Most of them I dislike for the contrivance that is evident in their construction. Not the sort of contrivance you do, since you don't pretend to make them look natural, so that's fine. The sort of contrivance I hate is where it's trying to look natural (or even worse "interesting" but obviously isn't.

When I have the camera in my hand, I spend a lot of time not bothering to take the shot, because I know that not enough about it is right, so there's no point. The light isn't right, there's a distracting background, I'm a fraction of a second late reacting, so I know that the moment will have passed by the time I release the shutter. It matters not, but mostly I don't take the shot, and I would be ashamed if anyone saw most of the ones I do take. A lot of the reason that I miss things is simply because most of what I'm looking at is outside my control.

I think what I'm asking, is can professional photographers see (really see) better than amateurs? Can they really exploit the things they happen upon, the things where they don't have the control that they do in the studio?

What can they really do - with a decent camera and lens, but without the resources that being a pro gives you - that we can't?

So do I.

Is she really throwing the shoe, or is it a picture of a model standing with her hand in the air, with a separate, static picture of a shoe superimposed on it?

Ben's style doesn't usually appeal to me aesthetically, although I do find myself looking at them for quite a long time, and the sheer technical mastery is unarguable. I have great respect for his work.

But might I take this opportunity to lay down a challenge to Ben? I've often wondered how good these pro photographers are, in terms of their intrinsic talent, as separate from the resources available to them.

K10D. A lens that you can get for under £100 on eBay. A tripod is allowed, but only natural light. No studio, no professional models, no makeup artists, no wardrobe consultants.

What can he do? Just how much better is it going to be than the rest of us peasants without the resources that the pro guy has?

I'm genuinely interested. This honestly isn't just a sour grapes kit-envy post. I say "not just". Obviously it is a bit. But the interest is genuine too. It's a little bit along the lines of "how good might I hope to be, if I really made the most of the learning opportunities available to me in this one short lifetime".

Yes, I knew very well that's what you meant...