Magpies are rather destructive creatures, not at all angelic.

But they are all uneaten, unless observing bananas reduces blood pressure.

The bananas are possibly rather spurious.

They are fine shots. I prefer the magpie which shows a bit of behaviour. They are not bird on a stick 'wall' shots and they are good to see for that reason. I see no halos.

It's difficult to say with such a small photo. However, it sees overcomplicated to me, the dog on its own would make a good photo, the mountains too. But together they interfere with each other, particularly the way the distant hills poke up between the dog's ears.

Not really. It's all about how the lens collection fits together. I have the DA*50-135 and DA*300. Even though the DA*200 looks stellar it is a bit too specialist in terms of what I do. Because I have those two lenses there seens little point in a 60-250. And I am an even bigger fan of the FALtds so I am not tempted by the 55.

Processing is an argument that will go on until hyperclaustrophobic cows come home. But the style of these is the cheap print of the cheap painting that graced grannie's living room. Or the kind of thing that are found in tourist souvenir shops. If you could press a button and get a Turner or a Picasso that's one thing, but with these you press a button and out pops a photo of a naff painting. It's not the subject or the compositions it's the style (or lack thereof). The photographic images underneath might be pretty good.

Already is.

David Storm is spot on.

Would you take a photograph of a painting? If so, why? Because that's just what these look like. Photographs of not particularly good paintings.

Oil painting is about the 3d texture of paint on canvas too and that is lost here. These are lifeless and soulless.

I think painting has a lot to teach photography, but not like this.

I partially agree, I like to see detail and sharpness where it matters and a light touch where it doesn't. Why bring out sharp detail in the little patch of grass and on the path? - as all bar one of the revised versions do. The 100% crop in the original looks detailed enough for me but the sizes permitted by the forum don't really allow for a proper appreciation of the end result. All just a matter of taste.