Lucky daughter! Want to adopt me?

That's one mean looking wasp! Not sure I'd have wanted to get that close, even after he'd been "pacified" with coffee!

Great shot though.

Awwww thanks guys

But of course, I may be completely wrong about all of it...

Don't forget, noise isn't always a bad thing! Some photographers go out of their way to create noisy pictures as it can create a certain type of atmosphere. Photography (like all art) is subjective - if you find a picture pleasing to your eye then don't allow a piece of software to tell you any different.

I answered "yes" but I'm not sure it was the right "yes". At the moment it's beating the other "yes" by a margin of four votes to three - I hope I've backed the right horse...

With Nikon it's only the D300 / D700 / D3, with Canon only the 1Ds3 / 1D mk3 - all of which are more expensive than a K20D and considerably dearer than a K10D. That's a lot of money to spend just to prove a point (and possibly find your new ship that you've just hopped on board having exactly the same problem) but it's your money to burn at the end of the day...

As for why this problem exists I do have a theory (disclaimer: I've worked in manufacturing but not for cameras so this is pure supposition on my part, albeit slightly educated supposition):

The tolerances required to set up a sensor are incredibly tight - we're not talking whole millimetres here, rather microns. These sorts of tolerances aren't achieveable by human hands, hence they'll be implemented by machines on the production line. Assembly line robots require regular calibration checks and it's not outside the realms of possibility that between these checks small variances will occur - not enough to be seen by the naked eye but enough to throw a sensor into BF/FF territory. In order to check every camera by hand would involve a huge number of man-hours and would add disproportionately to the cost of each individual unit sold, hence the machines are trusted to have done their jobs properly (as long as random tested samples are judged to fall within "acceptable" operating standards - that's acceptable to the manufacturer rather than the end user of course!).

A large percentage of users will never notice any FF/BF problems because they'll never progress beyond their kit lenses, and the comparatively small maximum apertures will mask a multitude of sins. The sensors in digicams and phones are even more tolerant of mis-adjustment as their tiny sizes ensure that even fast(ish) f2.8 lenses have a sufficiently large depth-of-field to cover any manufacturing deficiancy. Hence we're left at a stage where only those using fast lenses on APS-C and larger sensors are able to see that there's a problem somewhere.

Despite the impression you may get from reading Internet forums such as this one, these sort of users (fast lens / high expectation) actually represent the minority of DSLR owners, the manufacturers are well aware of this and probably figured out a long time ago that it's more cost efficient to deal with the small number of complainers on an individual basis after the sale is made, than it is to implement a whole new level of QC at the factory to deal with a problem that the majority of customers will never face. Simple economics there!

So why is it only now that cameras are starting to appear that allow the user to change things for him/herself? And why is it hidden on the K10D - only accessible by a hack?

I think the answer to the first part is due largely to (again) forums like this one. We live in an age where people can communicate with strangers on the other side of the world and compare notes and experiences on products in an unprecedented manner. In days of yore problems like this may have been well known to manufacturers but they would rarely (if ever) have admitted to them outside of their own factory gates. Now the evidence is laid bare for the world to see they are having to come to terms with these issues and be seen to be doing something about them. Much kudos is due to Pentax/Samsung for being among the first to take their heads out of the sand and hold their hands up to a potential problem! Who fancies betting Sony users are still having to send their stuff back to the factory 10 years from now..?

As for the K10D question, I think that camera was never intended to have its adjustment menu laid bare to anyone except Pentax technicians as it belonged to the previous school of thought (If we don't admit to having a problem then we don't have a problem). The fact is, Pentax obviously listened to the concerns of users and reacted by introducing the solution up-front in the K20D, this may be of little consolation to owners of earlier cameras but it bodes well for the future of the brand as it proves it to be responsive. Will the K10D ever get an "official" firmware with focus adjustment included? I highly doubt it; Pentax no longer make the camera so why spend so much as a single penny on further R&D for it? To line the pockets of those selling their old cameras on eBay (to folks who might otherwise have bought shiny new K20D's)? Of course not! That's the first step down a path that eventually leads to financial ruin - Hoya's not that stupid.

I did have a BF problem with my K10D, I used the hacked v1.10 of the firmware to cure it, it was easy and I'm happy with the results. I do not expect "perfection" from a DSLR out of the factory because that's simply unrealistic. I do expect a product that's at least 99.9% sorted though and I'm delighted to say that's exactly what Pentax provided me with - I'm under absolutely no delusions that any other manufacturer would have done any better (and from reading C/N forums I suspect the "big two" would have been considerably worse).

Just my $0.02 anyway.

I don't have the space myself really, and my Dad's quite happy with digital these days - hence it's all got to go.

Before you do that Gary bear this in mind; ALL the other manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji, Sigma) have exactly the same problem with around the same level of frequency. As far as I know, Pentax/Samsung is one of the very few where the end user can make their own adjustments as opposed to sending the camera back to the factory, waiting a month, then hoping they may (or may not) have actually got it right.

There are many valid reasons for swapping systems but I really don't think this could ever be considered one of them...

Without seeing the pictures from the Sigma and the Pentax - taken by the same person, of the same subjects, at the same time, with the same camera - side by side, it's difficult to make an evaluation on which is better. Having said that, none of these look especially pleasing to my eye and having seen your excellent macro work I don't think that's entirely down to the photographer. The colours somehow don't look "right" and there's a certain softness that I think is probably attributable to the lens - pictures I've seen from the 55-300 on the other hand seem as sharp as a tack and the colours look more natural somehow.

Not exactly a test that will stand up to close scientific scrutiny, but from what I've seen (on this thread and others) if I had the choice of the two I'd go for the Pentax offering...

They certainly don't look noisy to me either - lovely bokeh from the DA70 though!