I saw (whilst browsing in the supermarket last week) that the K10D was going to be previewed in this issue. Preview was the word they used, as I knew it was going to be a preview.

The phrase "I have dusted off my favourite PK lenses... All I need now is the camera - and I can hardly wait." would imply that there is an air of anticipation about this camera, and not just amongst those on this board.

I haven't seen the magazine, but it seems to me that what this preview amounts to is a free advert (one or two page?) for Pentax, and a favourable one at that. The article was probably written about a month ago, so it's no surprise they didn't have a sample to test fully.

We'd all be complaining if AP ignored the camera, but previewed others, so I fail to see the problem. They're raising awareness for 'our' brand, which will hopefully increase sales, and therefore encourage Pentax to carry on producing fantastic cameras.

Yes, we want to see a comprehensive test, but let's be thankful for anything that promotes Pentax.

Dan

I did it! Where's round 2?

Dan

Hi Ken,

Don't know of any templates you could use, sorry, but I can chip in my two penneth worth.

First, I think you should have your logo at the top of the page, as when I open it, you can see only the top half of it. Obviously that will change for different screen resolutions, but you have to decide on your lowest common denominator. These days, I would say that you could assume the majority of users will have screens 1024x768 or above. My website was designed 3 years ago, and was using 800x600 as the lowest screen resolution, so the major content would show in this area, and the area on the right hand side would only be seen with higher res screens. This area is therefore showing less important info.

At some point I'll have to update it for the bigger screens more commonly used these days.

I aimed to minimise the scrolling needed to see everything - on a 1024x768 screen there should be very little, if any (apart from one page, where there was just too much info), although it does depend on the browser too.

I used Cascading Style Sheets to lay everything out, much easier I find than tables, which I avoid as much as possible. The good thing about writing your own code is that you can lay it out as you want and it's much easier to find your way around if you need to edit it. Have a look at the source code for http://www.danielbridge.co.uk/2006/index.htm, which is typical of the layout for my site. Notes in the code remind me what different bits are for, and using CSS, I have an easy and quick way of laying out the design.

Most of my design was done on paper, whilst sat under a tree in the park. I then roughed it out in photoshop, working out the placement for each element, and only then wrote the code for it. That way, I (mostly) knew where things were going, and how to put them there.

I use some framed areas (actually iframes), but only for things that don't need to be found by search engines, as this can cause problems.

Sorry, doesn't exactly (at all) answer your question, but you did say "all input appreciated"!

Hope you find what you need,
Dan

P.S. I always write my URL as www.DanielBridge.co.uk , as it helps people to see it as my name and not just a jumble of letters. URLs are not case sensitive before the first '/'. When I see penciloflight, the word than jumps out at me is 'flight'. Not sure if PencilOfLight would be clearer, or just look odd.

How much are you willing to spend? I tried a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 before I got my 16-45. Wasn't bad, seem to remember there was a bit more distortion at the wide end. You could get that for about £240. I decided that I'd rather pay the extra £40 and get the Pentax (from Park Cameras).

Below that price I don't think you'll get anything better than what you've already got, but I could be wrong.

Beware of zooms in this price range that claim to be 'macro', when they really mean 'focus a bit nearer than you might expect'.

Dan

Crikey George, wouldn't like to bump into you in a darkened alley!

Nope, still not there. Again, could see it by pasting the link into the address bar. Oh, and now it's showing on the baord (with the google address, not the fotocommunity one).

How odd.

Dan

Can't see the pic here. But can if I copy the URL into the address bar of my browser.

Lovely spider - nice hairy legs and the subtle glow of a bit of backlighting - and the flash isn't overpowering at all. Good shot!

Dan

Hi Chukka,

Being a Pentax fan, posting on a Pentax forum, I would recommend you seriously consider the Sigma 105mm EX, as I do not have any experience with the Pentax!

I also have the non-DG version of this lens, used solely on my istD, and I'm more than happy with it, got some great results. Whether the DG version is any better, I don't know, but I don't think you'll be disappointed with this one.

Many here would say that the equivalent Pentax is sharper, but as I've got no experience of that lens, I can't say either way.

Probably the best price you'll get for a new lens too.

An example of the quality of the Sigma...



istD, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 @f/11, extension tube, ISO200, Flash with diffuser, full frame

I like the solid build quality of the EX lenses too, certainly feel more solid than the DA lenses I have (of which I added one more to my camera bag yesterday - the 50-200mm. Pentax outnumbers Sigma in my bag now ).

All the best,
Dan

Thanks for that link Steve, potentially very useful.

Dan

Peter,

Do check that your paypal payment has gone through - I had the unfortunate experience recently that paypal seemed to decide to do a bank transfer, rather than an instant payment. Took about 14 days for the money to get to the seller. Couldn't see any way of getting round it once I'd figured out what was happening, just had to apologise and wait.

Dan