Good decision, I'm sure you'll have a great time with your new K-r.

Many congratulations, a great achievement and a fine panel.

To be honest I think it could be a lot sharper. However, atmospheric conditions will play a large part in this so it may not be anything that could be helped.

They could always write about photography and how to use kit in general. Magazines don't have to favour any particular make. They never used to to the same degree, but then at one time there was a lot more choice.

I have no chance, Sue even refuses to carry a ladder so I can get nice elevation in my landscape shots.....

Quality costs money.

It all depends on where the individual's quest for quality ends before the wallet runs out.

However, original manufacturer's inks usually give the best results and good quality papers also usually give the best results.

For much of our printing we use Jessops Heavyweight Photo Matt 230gsm. This gives gorgeous, velvety blacks and looks superb at actually quite a low price. We did buy a few boxes, so hopefully when we need to re-order they won't have changed the supplier.

It's worth mentioning also that these "one-stop solutions" can be incredibly expensive and also very thin on the ground when a purchase is attempted.

But we shouldn't get into a "which marque is best" argument in this thread because those sort of discussions have no solution or resolution except people getting very aggrieved!

Every marque does some things better than others and some things less well. That's why we don't all buy the same kit and, for that matter, why we don't all read the same newspaper. Choices.

In the Pentax range only the Q will shoot in RAW and offer you the control you require. The X90 will offer the control, but no RAW. I use an X90 for all my eBay pictures, for which it is very convenient.

However, how about the WG-1? I'm quite enthusiastic about being able to carry a camera anywhere, anytime and still get good results. The waterproof models add another dimension in that they offer photography in situations where hitherto cameras have not been possible. Rain, underwater, sand, dust.....

To be fair Alan, I wasn't suggesting this was a ringing endorsement for anything, just making the comment that those without long zooms should not feel they can't have a go at lots of wildlife subjects.

300mm can be a bit short, true, but 400mm seems OK for most things. We have to be realistic and in some situations almost no lens will be long enough. I have no intention of lugging around a 2000mm lens, even if I could afford one!