Population Density :

Scotland - 65 persons / square km
England - 360 persons / square km
Canada - 3.5 persons / square km
Netherlands - 228 persons / square km
US - 31 persons / square km
Australia - 2.6 persons / square km
Argentina - 13.9 persons / square km
Spain - 89 persons / square km

(all figures from wikipedia)

Of the countries I remember seeing represented here (sorry if I missed you...) Australia and Canada seem to have way too much empty space...

(Yeah - I know, way too much free time - can't shoot photos - in the middle of another winter storm here...)

Actually, I was suggesting that the majority of North Americans (well, our neighbours to the south anyways ) were the ones spelling things strangely. My mother still gasps if I misuse "the Queen's English" and she's 4th or 5th generation Canadian, originally from Holland. I guess it's a heritage thing. Culturally we're probably more like the Brits (or Franks for our Quebecois friends) than the Americans.

I'm here because the signal-to-noise ratio on the US forums is way too low - not all of them are pixel peepers or "photographic equipment collectors" rather than photographers, but the percentage is certainly much, much higher there than on this forum.

Old flag? Our Ontario flag is almost exactly like the "old" one, with a different heraldic shield...

Disproportionate? Even if 50% of all Canadian DSLR Users used Pentax, we'd still be a smaller market than many European countries...

I think the real reason Canadians like it here, other than the congenial atmosphere (focused on the result not the equipment mostly), has to be the spelling... I mean - COLOR? Where's the 'u'...

BTW, I live about an hour east of Toronto (one of Drew's knuckle draggers, I suppose) and about 90 minutes south of Algonquin Park, where I have yet to go since getting my K10D...

Hard to imagine wanting to look at any more of it...

How much do you have? We've got a minimum of 26" with drifts up to 4 feet deep here...

I don't have a Mac (yet) but for those who do...

http://www.macworld.com/article/132068/2008/02/aperture2.html

Can anyone comment on whether PTLens is better (and how much better) than the built-in function in Elements (and, I assume, PS) for barrel or perspective corrections?

Jamie

Very nice. I liked the original, but the tighter crop (for whatever reason) looks even better (imo)

At the moment, any "water feature" shots around here would be big, flat, unbroken expanses of white snow over ice... unless I could convince the kids to build a snowman or something - bit it is -17 celcius - might be a hard sell...

UPS charges fees for crossing the USA-Canada border - even though it's mostly a technicality since their computers automate the process to the point where no-one at UPS has to really do anything special for most cross-border packages, other than not lose the attached paperwork...

I know this since a client hired me to integrate their warehousing software with UPS's shipping software... The system generated the appropriate documents for us at the point of shipping... We didn't do much shipping 'across-the-pond' but I don't remember it being much different on our end, can't see the requirements being that much different...

On further examination... (and I'm feeling pretty stupid now... )

Out of a dozen or so shots taken with the TC, only the last 3 or 4 don't have any focal length data... The others show 120mm - the length I told the camera to use for SR, and also specify an 'A Lens' because, I assume, of the Pentax TC. The lens used was actually a Sigma 28-70 f2.8.

SO... I've discovered that with the TC on, if SR is turned off, as was the case on my last 4 shots with the TC, there is no focal length but it still shows 'A Lens' on the exif. The focal length shows similarly on the on-camera display a well... (I'd be happy if the SR switch were more recessed and/or smaller. I've turned it off a few times now, and don't notice until I get a blurry picture that I was sure could be handheld...)

(on a new Pentax TC, if the camera did "cook" the focal length, it'd also solve any SR issues with having to choose a single setting for SR even though the "right" setting could change with a zoom.)

Thanks for the quick reply, Matt.

Sounds like a suggestion for Pentax if they ever do release another TC - with my extremely limited knowledge of h/w, it doesn't seem like it'd be terribly difficult to pass all the data through the TC, and trap and multiply (cook) the focal length by the appropriate factor...

Leads to the next question - since I'm still in the habit of noting down the length when I'm shooting (a throwback from my film days), what's the easiest way, if any, for me to enter the focal length (and perhaps any other missing info I think I need) into the exif for the odd occasions when I do use the TC?