190 legs are around £85 - £95, depending on whether you get the 'classic' or the 'ProB' type. But depending on the head you'd get with it, that looks like it may well be a bargain.

Dan

May I direct you to this...

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6065

...although the postage to Northern Ireland might be a few quid. But it is a cracking tripod, and as I say, I feel it's better than my Manfrotto 055ProB. Certainly getting the centre column horizontal for those low level shots is easier, although the new version of the 055 (the XPROB) is easier too in this respect. But it will cost you more. Oh, and doesn't come with a bag and strap.

Dan

On a slightly related note, have the people using Vista found any/many hardware/software issues? Thinking K10D, Raw convertors etc.

Not that I'm considering changing to Vista, but as that's all you seem to be able to get these days (as far as Windows OS's are concerned before Don, Justgetoutandride etc. pipe up ), I was just wondering...

Dan

Peter looks a lot different in cycling shorts...

Dan

You could try the free version of Silkypix, which apparently works with Windows ME, and it would definitely support Raw files from your K10D. You can download it from here: http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/download/

Dan

That's the problem when there's a blooming great lump like London in the way, you've either got to go right round it, or jump straight in the middle of it all.

St. Albans seemed to work okay last time, and we did suggest a south of London meet next time. Not sure where though...

Dan

And I'd be interested in anything accessible from Essex - London or anywhere not too far from the M25 really.

Dan

If you saw a scene that absolutely needed a square format, but you only had your DSLR with you, would you:

a) Say "Oh well, I'll have to get myself a Hasselblad and come back",

b) Take the shot, and make do with a less than perfect, 3:2 aspect ratio or

c) Take the shot, and crop it down to square afterwards?

I can appreciate the wish to get everything right when taking the shot, but when you're restricted by the equipment you have, or see a better crop after you've taken the shot, I see no reason to rigidly adhere to a rule like this.

Dan

I was desperately trying to find the photograph of (I think) sailors/lifeboatmen rowing from a ship/lighthouse in a storm, that was taken around the end of the 1800s. Quite a well known shot, and one of a series that the photographer did I think, but I can't remember his name, or, as you can tell, the precise nature of the shot. I'm fairly sure they were wearing sowesters.

It emerged some years later that this image was actually a composite of several others, mostly studio based I believe.

But it just goes to show that it's not a 'photoshop' thing, just a photography thing.

Dan

As long as any images are the sole work of the photographer, I don't see any problem in combining one or more photos to get the desired result. Can't say it's always something I'm always particularly fond of, as it's often quite obviously done, but it's not something new to photography, and can be very effective.

No one has said they have got anything 'off the web', and no one is advocating that this is something that would be acceptable.

Dan