It didn't sound snobbish to me - just a statement of obvious fact, with no judgement attached.

Sure. No one's saying the review isn't a good thing.

Couple of things in there made me laugh... given some of the discussion here...

[quote="review"]
I’m also happy to report that there’s no viewfinder on the K-01. It’s a digital camera with a 3″ LCD screen, why on earth would it need one?[/quote]and

[quote="review"]
All you need is a good eye for photography[/quote]No disagreement there

Doubtful.

It's probably just the fact that the vast majority of people here already have a later dSLR than (and/or) the K10D, so don't need another one.

Don't take it personally. I still have my original K10D as well as my more recent K-5. I don't need another one.

That's very interesting.

In the manual for the K-5 (which has a specific CIF setting), it's quite explicit - manual focus lenses, and DA or FA ones.

Not F, so you're probably right.

What happens when you try it with the F*? Does the shutter just not release, or does it release immediately whether in focus or not?

It's not daft at all. Expecting it to work with the camera set to MF is just wrong.

MF, set on the camera, means that it's expecting you to do the focusing, so it allows the shutter to be released irrespective of whether the AF system would think it was in focus.

MF, set on the lens, simply means that you have to turn the focus ring yourself, and has nothing to do with whether the camera's AF system is being used.

Therefore, for CIF to work, you need camera set to AF, and a lens where you turn the focus ring yourself. Whether this is an old MF lens, or an AF lens set to MF if it can be, is irrelevant.

In a secure firesafe, clearly, if you think that's safe

I'm sure that historically, we all failed to do much with our negs other than put them in a cupboard, but it doesn't change the fact that in the event of a fire, we'd have lost the whole lot.

Even if this is true for one SD card, which I doubt, it certainly isn't true as the number of SD cards increases.

The fact is that if you value your images, you need to get yourself a proper storage and backup strategy - the sheer volume of data will make anything else a game of russian roulette, and sooner or later, you will lose valuable data.

The strategy should involve off-site backup, as well as local redundancy.

Hmm... whereas I loved your 'Open and Closed', I'm not keen on this one at all I'm afraid.

To my eye, not enough of it is sharp, and somehow the shape isn't all that pleasing either - a bit too 'blobby' (technical term, there )

So it's not quite a macro, not quite a flower. If it was all sharp, it would just about be salvaged by the texture, but there's not enough of that.

Sorry, I like a lot of your shots, but not this one.

Both, but mostly patience. I never developed or printed my own pictures, and the gap between the exposure and the print meant that it was difficult to learn from the mistakes.

Whereas with digital, I see the dross straight away and can therefore often fix it, and I don't need chemicals and actual dark, for the darkroom work.

Hats off to you, Kris, I could never go back there - I don't have the patience any more.

This is the slightly puzzling thing. They did, and then they started stocking it again.

The only thing wrong with the way it used to be was that the gaps between the levels were far too small.