It all depends what you want to photograph and how much you want to lug a telescope about. Dobsonians are great for viewing, not so great for lugging about or photographing anything except the Moon.

Not necessarily a DA* , maybe intentional or maybe a typo.

Cheers Andy. I saw it on the news. I'm gutted. I will have a couple of days in March, if it makes it until then, which looks doubtful. Finn Hopson is already making the most of it. I imagine it has reached its stage of maximum pathos.

Smeg, don't confuse a bit of fun with defensive retorts. Take a chill pill and photograph something. Don't be concerned about what others think.

That's an amazing deal, difficult to turn down. Good luck with it.

So, things to be avoided are:


Milky waterfalls
Single tree in a field
Mirror flat seas with groynes
A child laughing, caught in an unselfconscious moment of joy
Big stopper filters
Milk pond effects
Horseshoe bends
Brightly coloured doors with peeling paint
The Moon


Mmmmmmmmmmmmm



























I'll get my coat. That's because I'm going to some unpronouncable place in Scotland where I shall photograph a balancing baby.

If you worried about cliches then you wouldn't photograph anything. There are gazillions of images on the internet so very little that hasn't been seen before.

Just photograph what you like. It's original because it will be yours and nobody elses. The trying too hard to be different photo with odd composition, whacky for the sake if it angle or just plain load of blurry crap is just as bad in my book.

Yes, first and foremost enjoy the skiing. For the photography take something very compact.

I don't think whether the 135-380 is ff or apsc will give any definitive answer. We will have a definitive answer though before the year is out.

I must say K600/K60/KL/K3 looks like a stunning APSC lineup. Quality and easy to differentiate products. Why didn't they call the K3 the K6 though?

Did the KL spec say plastic, can't be right.

It's had strangely mixed reviews. Really one to try for oneself. I find the negative that it is an odd zoom range not really very wide, nor very telephoto a puzzling conclusion. Surely the point is how it fits in with other lenses and what the inetntion of the user is. Personally I think it is a cleverly conceived zoom range ideal for many uses and will partner very well with certain other lenses. I don't think I've ever read a review of a prime lens that says it is the wrong focal length. If it were wider and longer then it would be the 16-50 for example, which we already have, it would certainly be bigger and hence negate one of its key features.