Personally I use JPG, as I'm quite happy with the results the camera produces in that format and I'm not sure RAW would help much with my usual problem of blown skies (a grad ND filter would be much better).

I do wonder if the JPG processing engine on newer bodies has improved, as pretty much every user of other systems I meet says "you should shoot RAW" even though I'm getting perfectly good results. Could this idea have got around in the early days of DSLRs and not been challenged since?

Still on the M 28mm f3.5 here, compact, seriously sharp and pretty much focus free at distances of 4m+. Can't stretch to the FA version unfortunately!

But none of my lenses have a tripod mount!

I shall have another play with the camera, lens and fixed head monopod in the garden and see if it's workable. My initial tests suggested that the monopod leg would be sticking out about 3' in front of me which would most likely cause people to trip over it.

I would say that 2kg would be the absolute max, I'll be using it with a K-m and a 100-300mm zoom. I'd rather it didn't have a quick release as I find them annoying - the plate tends to end up in the wrong place all the time, especially if you use more than one body with the same support.

I won't be using it on a tripod as those already have pan/tilt heads, so it won't have to take the full weight of the camera and lens. It's purely to steady it.

Where on earth do pigs and miniature horses come in? I can understand guide dogs/hearing dogs but that does verge on the ridiculous.

I'll bet there were a lot of questions about peanuts, after some loon apparently locked herself in the aircraft toilet claiming that her "allergy" meant that she couldn't even be on the same plane as an open bag of the things!

As the title suggests, I'm looking for a ball head for a monopod, with some provisos:

I already have an excellent monopod with the standard 1/4" thread bolt on the top, the snag is that in order to get the elevation I need to photograph aircraft the camera needs to be able to tilt back. As a result I'm wondering which ball head people would recommend to fit on top of the monopod and connect to the camera? I did find a couple on Amazon but the reviews weren't complimentary - apparently they were more suited to a compact than a DSLR with a fairly heavy zoom!

My interest in black and white stems from two things - it's easy and fun to process at home, and it also strips subjects to texture and light. Mono photos of flowers can be very interesting as rather than a riot of colour you can pick out the details and textures. It also works well for industrial subjects and old buildings.

Given the budget I might suggest looking at a few older lenses:

Pentax FA-J 75-300mm f4.5-5.8
Pentax FA 80-320mm f4.5-5.6
Pentax-F 100-300mm f4.5-5.6

The first lens is the lightest at 385g, followed by the second at 550g and the third at 605g. When I bought my K-m I was just after a long zoom for not a lot of money, so I bought the 100-300mm for £60. Mine has a bit of internal dust but it still performs well enough providing that you have good light.

A bit of a tangent here but I'd love to see a couple of 28mm primes. Say a cheap £150-£200 f2.8 which would be sold as a first prime (50mm is a bit long on APS-C, but I find 28mm pretty much perfect for walkabout use) and then the DA * f2 version as a premium one?

It would also deny the rest of us the chance to take our version of those shots. I haven't really had a go at a sunset yet as I haven't got around to buying a graduated ND filter, attempts without that tend to produce underexposed horizons or blown out skies.

There is no need to ban anything. The innovative and unusual photos will always get more favourable comments than poor ones with cliched subjects.

What I have always found sad are the people with identikit shop-bought art on their walls, especially Jack Vettriano. All credit to the chap, he's made a fortune from it, but it's all so bland and beige to my eyes. It doesn't mean anything to the people who bought it beyond being a pretty picture. In an age when even point and shoot compacts can produce images that look good blown up to A4 or A3 size why on earth aren't more people printing their best shots of meaningful subjects?