Thanks for the replies. It's not the cost I object to, but having to have a Yahoo Wallet (which I don't like the sound of). Not knowing exactly what this is, how it works and how secure it is, particularly as it shouldn't be necessary when paying a few dollars every twelve months, means its aggro I can do without.

I'm looking at Photobucket at the moment.

Thanks,

John.

Hi All,

I've been using Flickr quite happily for the last year or so but have now nearly reached the point where I'm going to exceed the 200 photo limit on my free photostream (not that I knew there was a limit). I was going to go 'pro' but that seems to require a Yahoo Wallet arrangement which seems completely OTT.

What alternatives are there (not Instagram before anyone suggests it)? I'm happy to pay for the right service if necessary and I'm not too bothered about favs, contacts, groups etc.

The other option is to boost my own web hosting package and put together a basic site of my own (display only), which would be an interesting project in itself.

Any comments/suggestions?

Regards,

John.

It's been a while since I last saw a Pentax in the wild, but at least I'm seeing them in shops again. It seems that Pentax had good reason to release the 560mm, it makes it easier for us to get shots of other Pentax users

In order to stop double-counting, maybe we need PU caps (or better still straps) or some secret gesture?

Hi Russ,

Thanks for your understanding. I know swaps for specific items can be hard to arrange so thought it might help.

Regards,

John.

I've had my 17-70 for a year without any problems. The SDM makes it much more pleasant to use than screw-drive AF and the focal length range is perfect for most uses.

Mine is also hardly ever off the camera.

John.

See above

Hi Guys,

I wouldn't want to get in the way of a mutually convenient swapathon. If the 28-105 is going spare I'll buy it, but if not, I'll let it go.

John.

For example, this was one of the first shots I took on my K-5, ISO 400 with a complete untouched raw (DNG) file exported as a 800x529 **** JPEG, FA 28-80 F/3.5-4.7 - 1/180th, F/8 set to 33mm:



And a 100% crop of same:

As the OP has pointed out, the FA 28-80 f/3.5-4.7 & 28-105 both have poor reputations on this forum (as well as the other forum). Whilst I agree they don't feel well built and the zoom/focus rings aren't the smoothest, I don't think they're that bad.

When released with the Z-1, they both were reasonably well regarded and considered as being above average by both AP & PP lens tests, with the 28-105 being rated slightly better. There's little wrong with my Kodachrome slides shot on the Z-1 at the time.

There were various other FA 28-80s (F/3.5-5.6 & F/3.5-5.6 AL) - which were slower, cheaper and had the silver or black finish. According to this link the F/.5-5.6 AL actually scores lower than the non-AL one:link

Until I bought my DA 17-70, I used the 28-80 F/3.5-4.7 version on my K-5 (apart from the non-standard focal length - which prompted me to buy the 17-70) it was a reasonable performer (I'd be very surprised if the 18-55 kit kens was better).

However, as I found out, unless you're looking for a 42-120+ equivalent zoom, you're better off with an 18-55, 17-70 or 18-135 as your needs and budget dictate.

To be fair, Pentax was always less common than Canon or Nikon and along with Minolta & Olympus fought for third. Then Olympus all but gave up when AF arrived (IIRC at one point they only made the OM4Ti SLR and a handful of lenses).

Sony seem to have little interest in the legacy Minolta user base and are more interested building a new one from scratch. Olympus seem to have settled in the 4/3rds format.

Nikon & Canon both have a bewildering range of SLRs, many dealers have them wall to wall whilst only having a couple of Pentax bodies with kit lenses. Pentax lens prices don't help - the DA 50/1.8 is double that of the Canon & Nikon equivalents. Whilst only a small point in a larger system, for a beginner starting out, it is a significant difference.

Pentax advertising/sponsoring is noted by its absence too (although very good when you see it).