I saw a 16-45 on sale for $249.99 canadian.... to put that into perspective, that's half price from when it was new.....
right now that's your best bet even if you can't find one on sale.

my end of year goodies are still rolling in and will be for a couple weeks yet!
epson r2400 arrived today!

got a 16-45.... rumor has it there are some elinchrom bits and manfrotto lightstands and clamps coming from Toronto.... I hope there's a manfrotto boomstand in there too!

this year..so far...
(I got myself a big stack of gift tags)...
so I got a cell phone, a crystal radio set....some clothes that are too small...some software, some games, some puzzles, a toy cash register, some posters, some trucks...a roboquad....
there's still more stuff under the tree, we have two more parties to go before they all get opened, but oddly enough, everything was addressed to me....
I'm sending the kids outside to go sliding....they seem a little depressed...they're bumbing me out...this is the best Christmas ever....
now I'm off to program roboquad to attack the cat!

that may not be the fault of the lens...converging verticals can be caused by not having the sensor vertical. in the above image it appears the camera was leaning backward when the shot was taken...
wide angles must be parallel to the subject on both horizontal and verticle planes to minimize distortion.

BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN IF YOU PUSH THE GREEN BUTTON!!!!
javascript:emoticon('')

seriously though, it's all in the manual...
I use mine in manual mode for fast exposure readings...

with 20 years experince with cameras (presumably slrs) go with the k10.
the weather seals will come in handy....
your learning curve will be focussed on the D in dslr, and as such you won't be as ovewhelmed as a novice would be.
the digital bodies will be unstable in pricing for a few more years yet so an investment in good glass would be wise. you'll find a better/cheaper model in a couple years as far as the body is concerned.

couldn't agree more. Helterskelter.

I use primes where the job demands it, and zooms where I can...
up to 11x14 the differences are negligable. But try taking the same shot my trusty 28-200, (at 50mm) and my 50mm 1.4 and blow the final images up to 20x30 inches. at ten feet from the print, hard to tell, but at ten inches....night and day. also try both at low light levels...
so end use matters.

you don't need anything special to view stereoscopic images like the one above...
just a matter of finding the right viewing distance (approx the diagonal from corner to corner should be about the same distance your eyes from the image.

some people find it easier to see the 3d effect if they hold a piece of paper (black is better) vertically between thier eyes when viewing.

reflective cells on the back of thier eyes geared to enhance thier night vision.....and possibly they are all alcoholics.....