I delete the really bad stuff from the camera before even uploading it. But once it's on the computer, I very rarely delete it.

This would be my guess too.

What people don't seem to realise is that the tiniest change of lighting can have a disproportionate effect on the amount of PF in an image.

So it's very easy to blame the effect on other variables, and a new urban myth can be born all too easily.

Ok, and is there any EXIF available for these two images?

As someone said on that thread...

"I think it would be much easier to draw conclusions from a more controlled test. Your subject was moving, white balance looks different, it is difficult to see if background light intensity was the same which would affect purple fringing. "

It's really not possible to conclude much without more information, I'm afraid.

For once we very much agree, John.

It's far from clear from that reference whether he's talking about what we normally think of as purple fringing, or a magenta colour cast on a picture that has been cranked up to +4 EV on the computer.

This is exactly what I mean by unclear references taking on a life of their own and becoming pseudo-authoritative when people quote them out of context, and build on them with yet more anecdotes.

I really don't know whether the K-5 shows worse PF than anything else, but none of the links seems to give much in the way of actual evidence one way or another.

Seems a bit surprising to me that if he's going to assert that the K-5 PF problems are so awful (and where does he do this in a structured way?), he hasn't even done a review for the K-5.

The distant past, uncited and imperfectly remembered is no good at all.

And it's unhelpful to make assertions like

... if the best supporting evidence you can find is a comment in a review that's unrelated to the lens under discussion.

The assertion may be true, it may not be true. But without clear evidence, this sort of off-the-cuff comment is worthless, and worse, it just adds to the anecdotal noise that makes actual information a lot harder to find.

I had the AF pack up on mine, shortly after buying it. It was replaced under warranty, and the replacement has been fine.

Prone? I don't know if it's any more prone to failure than anything else.

If they're soft, I'd say it's my technique, rather than anything else that's at fault.

But a tripod? For fast moving aircraft? Erm, no. Unless the aircraft path is extremely predictable, a tripod is impractical for most aircraft shots.

The main thing that makes it difficult is that unlike jets, with propeller-driven aeroplanes, you have to keep the shutter speed slow, since with exposures much shorter than 1/200s, you freeze the prop which looks rubbish.

Inevitably, hand-held shots with long lenses and long exposures will tend to suffer a bit from shake.

Citation?

+1