Or this one.

If I upgrade from my K5 then from what I've seen I don't think I will get significantly better image quality, in some cases it seems a bit worse. However, each 7.5pence I spend will buy me 1,000 extra pixels. That's cheap!!!!! I hear the K3 gives you extra cropping ability. That's great, because the pixels are so cheap I could throw them away again.

Actually I'm just going to try and keep all the pixels I've got and subject them to more attractive photons. I'm a little bit bored of test images and comparisons now. Any of these cameras is capable of great images. I don't care how people spend their money, I'd rather just see some cracking piccies.

Well it has been too cloudy here. It is clear tonight but I think it's too close to the Sun to view in the morning.

I will be visiting Wales very soon, spending Christmas at Llandogo. It's only 200metres from the English border but I might venture a bit further in every now and again.

If you like high iso night photography to avoid star trails then it matters a lot.

Thanks all. It would be nice to get around and about a bit.

Andrew, I've just had my lunch of a cheddar cheese sandwich (granary bread) and I'm listening to Radcliffe and Maconie on 6 music. The lorry with Tescos shopping deliveries comes every three weeks. Bacon and sausages come from a British farm in the Correze. The only thing we don't get is the chewing gum on the pavements, so that's something to look forward to.

The blue tit is very good, I like the colours. Shame about the tag although that is a comment in itself, are they really that rare in the UK now? If so, what a sad state of affairs. Ten a penny round here and no tags.

The second is good but not as good as I have seen from that spot, touch of diverging verticals on the tower doesn't help.

I like the last one too. but although often dictated by the scene the abrupt cutting off at the top I always find a bit dissatisying. Always difficult to judge vertical but this looks a degree off to me, I'd twist it right.

Sure will, big time.

The comet is on its way towards the Sun and it needs to be viewed from a dark site through binoculars. It should be visible here in the back of beyond. It is currently cloudy (and snowy) but forecast is better next week. I am hopeful of getting an image. It will pass around the Sun - it might emerge brightly and be visible or it might break up, unpredictable.

The Lovejoy comet so far has been much easier to see than ISON.

I think there is quite a difference between what the eye sees and what the camera sees.

In my view less is almost always more, simplicity is often the key to a striking image. And for me that means a clear choice of subject and identifying the essence of a scene. A good composition needs somehwere for the eye to settle or a clear journey for the eye through a scene. A journey for an eye through the scene ending with a place to settle (ideally on one of the 'third' points) is going to work. Add magical lighting and I think that is a good recipe.

I think this is the wrong shot, it is a jumble but not in a pleasing, abstract way. There are a lot of shapes and textures and the light is somewhat harsh, with brightness in the sky (and its reflection) and shaded areas.

The essence of this scene to me is autumn colours reflected. The contrast to be provided by colour (blue/orange is good) and not by whites and blacks. So I would look to convey that idea in a simple way. Just a tree or a whole number of trees and their reflections. The sky has to be attractive: plain blue maybe best here, fluffy clouds OK, a stormy sky OK, but definitely not a flat, dead sky. A 50/50 ratio of sky and pond would be conventional and would work well.

Another way to approach it might be just a simple image of the reflection of a tree.