I've had my K5-lls for a few months. It went back to SRS, just after I bought it, when it kept locking up, and that seemed to be just a firmware issue as it's only done it once since it was returned. When I tried out the day after it came back I had a series of images - probably 20 or more but not every image in a sequence of two or three - totally over exposed, almost white. It seemed to right itself [I experimented with all sorts of different settings and swapped lenses]. Since then it's occasionally given the odd few really overexposed shots but this weekend I had two or three lots of 5 to 10 sequences which had the same problem. This happens shooting JPEGs in, mainly TAV mode [where it sets really high ISO in sunshine] but also AV,TV etc. It does it in all metering modes. I can take a couple of shots which are properly exposed, point at the same subject and have totally washed out results. Any ideas? Or does it sound faulty? Never had this with any other camera.

As a long time Nikon user [from the D70 to D300s] I had a D7000 for a while but ultimately preferred the K-5 and sold it. For me, the only real advantage with the Nikon for long range stuff is the availability of fast and fast focussing lenses. Been out with my K-30 and 55-300mm today and certainly have no regrets that I no longer have a Nikon. The K5-lls which I also now have seems just a bit snappier AF wise but the K-30 is a brilliant lightweight DSLR - much more robust feeling than budget Canikons.
Have to admit I rarely use more than one focus point!

I've had 4 of these over the past few years and not really had problems with any [other than the cheaper version developing a slight judder]. If only they would update it with quiet/faster af and weatherproofing! Some examples with various cameras

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/72157607104487487/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/72157626116859099/

Had a quick look at the alternatives mentioned above and think I still like ipernity. The old flickr was certainly getting tired looking but, as the users liked it for the way it worked, it simply needed more options for users to customise as they wanted- ipernity seems to do this and is also nice and quick and easy to use.Hopefully the influx of ex flickr users will stay and grow the community. Think i'll leave my pictures on flickr for a while and make a banner for the top with the address of my account on ipernity to direct anyone looking for up to date pictures.

Looks like there might be a silver lining. Just joined ipernity and did a test upload, and at first glance it seems much like the old flickr but with a more attractive look. Looks like a better option for putting sets of pictures on. If it's still ok after a road test I think it might be worth £20 a year for the full version.
http://www.ipernity.com/home/286913

Well, the feedback they asked for is so far around 99% negative. I'm assuming the revenue source will now be lots of wonderful adverts plastered all over everything. Apparently the feedback from the beta testers was just as negative but that was ignored, so not much hope things will change.

For those who don't have a pro account I can see that the enormous increase in space is a big plus. For those who pay we've suddenly been presented with something we did'nt expect! It certainly needed updating as far as looks went but it would be nice for it still to be user friendly. Looking for alternatives now.

It seems most flickr users disagree the changes are good! The new set up is a nightmare to use. No way to access the collections I've set up. The sets are presented in a rubbish way and it's changed from a simple easy to use site for sharing pictures to some mobile 'app' type mishmash. Having had a pro account since 2007 and with over 14,000 pictures on there [many from events which i need to share] I'm totally fed up!! Read what others are saying add your feedback here

http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/page77/

flickr needed a facelift but surely it could have been done without ruining the concept.

i suppose winning photo competitions depends on the criteria of the judges - technically good but boring or possibly less technically good but interesting - getting both right being the ideal but hardest! The main rule of bird photography is, the better the light the fewer birds you'll see!!

I think it's true what has been said about bird photography not generally being done to be artistic. I started to do it as a hobby when dog walking - when you tend to travel the same route a lot it's good to have something else to do at the same time. There are plenty of challenges and it can be fun and frustrating too - just spend half an hour trying to catch swallows in flight. There are pluses and minuses with big heavy lenses and [because I'm not trying to produce large prints etc.] I've always found a smaller lighter lens which you can hand hold, together with a bit of cropping, a better option. Just look at a pre digital 'how to' bird photography book and most amateurs had nothing longer than 300mm unless it was a mirror lens. How much you spend is really dependent on how serious you become. I did use a Sigma 120-400mm for a bit and that was'nt bad at all if a tad heavy. Some snaps here, mostly taken with a 55-300mm - frustratingly slow to focus at times which is it's main drawback, otherwise it compares very favourably with the offerings from Canon and Nikon which I've also used.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/72157625545931009/with/5527646032/