Not in the case of the K-5.

As the DxOMark results show, the K-5 gains dynamic range at the ISO 80 setting.

Older Canon cameras had ISO 50 settings, which just decreased dynamic range by crushing shadows but not by making the sensor less sensitive.

BTW, most cameras have a highest ISO setting (ISO 1600 in the case of the K-5) which benefits (slightly) from internal analogue amplification. Higher ISO settings are achieved by digital upscaling and could just as well be achieved in post. The advantage of the post scaling is that losing highlights is less likely, but one then has to deal with explicit post processing and underexposed shots on the back LCD.

The specification says "100m". The actual range will depend on conditions such as blockage, radio interference. I reached 150m and possibly a bit more.

I think you wanted to say
"if haven't used a lens you own for ages, consider selling it to someone who loves it".

P.S.: If you want to sell yours, I can help you find it.

What do you mean?
One possibility would be the statement "Any lens on APS-C will act as it acts on APS-C", which is a vacuous statement which one does not need to make. The statement that a 85mm on APS-C will act like a 85mm on FF, is wrong.

I agree that the 85/2 has a very nice size but I wouldn't recommend anyone to keep it just because it has become rare. If someone doesn't use it, they should let go of it, otherwise it just becomes rarer for no good reason.

I like the results from the 85/2 a lot but I'd go on a limb and say that the bokeh from the Samyang 85/1.4 is even better. For people not being put off buy the size and don't want to use their 85mm at f/8 and beyond, I'd say the Samyang is the better choice, optically and because of the "A"-setting. I'd love to see a direct comparison between the lenses.

BTW, the trick to short the "A"-pin on the mount to turn an M-lens into an A-lens only works well for wideish apertures. The more one stops down, the more the discrepancy between the "linear diameter" vs "linear area" relationship to the aperture lever that exists between M-lenses and A-lenses comes into play and requires a corresponding (f-ratio dependent) exposure compensation.

Given that you see the "stains" only after breathing on the adapter, it seems to me that simply some moisture makes it inside the adapter. If that's the case then a) you shouldn't be able to wipe away the "stains" and b) they should disappear after a short while on their own.

Provided that it is just a bit of moisture / condensation forming on the rear side of the rear element, I wouldn't worry about this problem at all.

BTW, @davex: Yes, one has to pre-focus manually first (unless the subject matter is already in the focus area which it will be in many scenarios) but there is still a huge advantage in leaving the fine adjust of the focus to the camera. For most that's more reliable and quicker even when one has focusing aids such as a split screen installed.

Pete,
I realise this is an old question of yours, but have you tried pressing the "OK" button while you press the shutter button? Does the camera still fire the shutter even if nothing is in focus?

Hey Pete,

you are celebrating the arrival of your K-5 on all channels, aren't you?

Congrats on the purchase!

BTW, the Flickr images in the post before this one have become unavailable?

First, if the intent of the rule is to protect communication parties then no rules needed to be changed at all. If all parties offer their part of the communication to be published then this could be done right now without changing rules.

Second, I don't think anyone asked for realtime democracy or a rule change in a hissy fit. If a rule change would be required to allow situations like this to be clarified (only as long as everyone agrees, of course) then I'm very calmly proposing that it should be considered.

Third, I don't think rule sets that allow forum members to understand the actions of moderators (again, provided that all involved parties are happy to have private communication disclosed) lead to anarchy.

Hey Pete, is the K105 any good? I've read good things about it but it is not that easy to find images from it.

Would you mind posting some here?

What is the purpose of the rule? The rule is in place to protect the parties in the communication, right?

If one of the parties declares that no protection is required, why still follow the rule?

In other words, there should be a principle that protects senders of PMs to have the contents of PMs disclosed against their will. I understand that the "PMs must remain private rule" is in place in that spirit. Yet, if no protection is required, why still hang on to the letters of a rule when the reason why it has been put into place does not apply in this case?