The only time I got excited, when looking at the back of my k10, was while reviewing some images of models I shot at a Nygard event some months back......
They were some nice shots of very pretty girls.
That's girls, not "Birdies", and not the back end of a camera....
javascript:emoticon('')
We're gonna have to start a twelve step program for Pentaxians, any suggestions?

must be one of those "Screw-U" mount, "Super" deals. Shipping and handling "X-tra". Expect delivery in rear.javascript:emoticon('')

I'll opt for the next gen camera, regardless of sensor, if the features/performance/cost package adds up to equall or better value than the k10. I don't really need any more pixels.

now if only Pentax will take the 645 body and hack it to do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_Digital_Camera_Company

and/or this:


http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/Exilim_Pro/EX-F1/

Prolonged use of Nikon/Canon equipment does seem to have an adverse effect on some peoples brains....

I usually snap when they don't behave.
javascript:emoticon('')
looking forward to seeing some scenic's when you're done!

I like it....maybe just a little burning in on the machinery border areas.....

I've used the 50 and the 100 pentax.
if all you want is coins and jelwery, the 50 is fine.
for live subjects, you'll need/want the extra working distance of the 100.

I use my 100 primarily for portraits, but there's lots of samples of macro stuff by me and others posted.

ps, here's a test shot of my step daughter, and her bf I did for practice the other day...
It is one hell of a fine portrait lens!




also, I know not the best portrait, just they stood in while i was setting up for another couple......the other guy had hair so no brightspot on bald head....

covertly photographing people to the side while giving the appearance your camera is pointed forward.

it's just a mirror in a box that fits your lens, (like a lens shade) looks like a lens, but allows you to see off to the side!

Can I pipe in here?
making 2 or more images from a single file and merging them "hdr" style to get more dynamic range, doesn't make much sense anymore.
Raw converters, used properly should be able to eke out all the pixels possible from the file.

coincidentally, here's an article on Aperture....(I know not everybody uses aperture, but read anyways, your converter should be able to get the same results).

http://blogs.oreilly.com/aperture/2008/07/secrets-and-lies-your-cameras.html

drop me the original file and I'll take a whack at it if you like.....

ok....
I'm going to have to sell a bunch of weddings for next year so I can buy a 200mm 2.8. if that fails...I'll offer to kill for money...if that fails I'll try selling my body...
now considering how much money I'd get from women wanting to abuse me intimately...I may need 1200-1400 takers on that last idea...at a dollar or so each...
but that is a great lens.....