It's a commonly held view, but there's really no bravery involved.

Light aircraft, even though some of them are very old, are maintained to very high standards.

They also have the distinct advantage that in the very rare cases where an engine does fail, you can land in a field. Pilots are all trained to fly engine-off approaches and landings, and the sensible ones practise such techniques. Try losing all power in a commercial jet (admittedly rare!) and unless your pilot happens to be Chesley Sullenberger, you're pretty much done for.

The fatalities that you read of are almost all due to idiots doing daft things, suitably sensationalised by uninformed reporters.

Give it a go - you won't regret it!

I really think someone should take your camera away. Otherwise I'll be slitting my wrists, or at least hanging up mine for sure

I would certainly never use Live View for moving objects!!

However, I doubt anyone would

Well, I'm genuinely curious.

I'd be the first to agree that, especially with the AF assist light, but also often without it, the AF will certainly lock on sometimes in very dim light, and I've been truly amazed at what it will sometimes see even through the 10 stop ND filter I acquired from SimonKit the other week.

But in reality, if you push it a bit harder, things become less consistent.

Whereas you've often commented that you have no problem with Pentax AF, which flies in the face of the experience of many, many people.

So it's either that your cameras and lenses are virtually the only ones that work properly (extremely unlikely), or that you're the only one with good enough technique (more likely, but, with respect, still pretty unlikely ), or that the things you photograph lend themselves to easy focusing.

I'd bet on the latter, not in any way to cast aspersions.

Do you ever photograph moving objects, John?

Not to take anything away from the OP's results, it has to be said, that the hard work in air-to-air photography is all done by the pilots

They're the ones presenting the photographer with a virtually stationary target, nice and close, while at the same time not causing a mid-air collision and killing all those involved

Ah, well done!

I'll wait till they've run out at that price before selling my one

Yes, I guess so. Does it really really give you more versatility and better IQ than a high end compact would?

If so it would be worth considering where light weight was needed, for sure.

I'd have thought that the only point of having a Q at all is that it's so small. So that you can slip it into another bag - like a handbag - and not have to carry a camera bag at all.

I've noticed you're interested in planes - if you're out to the west of London sometime and you fancy doing a bit more, let me know. I'm based at White Waltham, and there's often loads of stuff going on. Lots of interesting aeroplanes, aeros in the overhead at weekends if you're lucky. I'm flying a bit more this year so I'm down there a fair bit.

If others are interested in the idea too, feel free to drop me a PM, we can see if dates and times work out.