I bet you there is a Pentax FF announced at Photokina

Because it is only moving small elements in the 18-135 and was not designed for larger lenses.

The unthinkable is approaching at speed. I am trying to hang on until Photokina (see, that's the other site's influence) to see if Pentax are bringing out a camera, and/or the 560, that interests me but it's getting harder and harder - I almost bought a D800 yesterday, I was really surprised that even with the battery installed it hardly felt any heavier or larger than the K5. Didn't like the grip anywhere near as much though and I didn't like the placement of the ISO button - but of course these will become habit.

Next week I'm selling off about 15 lenses and retaining at least one K5 with my best PK mounts (Ltds, Zeiss, 300) and most exotic (Cosina 50/1.2 and Lensbabies) to have the cash ready, but the D800 or 5DIII, plus Sigma 500 and TCs are siren calls. So two systems (one for birding - Nikon/Canon, one for everyday - K5) is looking increasingly likely.

Well I doubt I'd need a camera if stranded on a desert island

Sigma 50-500.

That's a neat trick Transit. Luckily I can squeeze my fingers into the gap without too much of a problem.

If you take a look on the Sony forums they pretty much rule out shooting over 800 ISO unless you are really into PP NR. It actually shocked me reading through the threads.

I'm afraid I wouldn't touch Sony (their better lenses are damn expensive too).

If you don't mind paying early adopter prices you might want to wait until after Photokina as there are sure to be a whole host of new cameras from Nikon / Canon and Pentax announced and probably on the market well before Xmas.

It is - a guy on the other forum has and uses one.

I think the only way this question (of which is better) can be answered is in the lab, and those tests have consistently shown in-lens outperforms in-camera. Which should come as no surprise when you consider that in each case the in-lens SR has been designed specifically for that lens.

Whether that makes much (any?) difference in actual use is debatable. All that matters is that the SR works well and if you can't tell the difference then both are doing what they are supposed to do !

I would guess the only times that the in-lens could be shown to be better in actual use would be in very specific circumstances, or at certain FLs or shutter speeds, which combinations may only occur once in a hundred shots, if that. So it would be very difficult to actually nail it down and say 'that was due to the SR'.

I like the first PP version best if presented as an HDR image. This new version is a lot more natural - but, for me, lacks punch. You can't win eh

I love #2 - even though it does look contrived with, as mentioned, the ambient light on the tree not matching the sunset.

Certainly does have a very 'African wilderness' look to it, you can even spot the Fuqawi tribesmen, camouflaged as sheep, stalking the photographer. Surprised Hullman made it back alive !