Canon's results are interesting. Camera sales are the only light in the dark for them, but if "optical products" includes SLR lenses, then it's not very rosy at all.

So it looks as though all the camera manufacturers have been finding it easy to sell cameras but not so easy to make any money out of it. Nikon also posted losses. I think i'm right in saying that Sony did as well.

I disagree that the K mount backwards compatibility is a negative factor, it's actually a huge selling point with a powerful benefit. The same applies to Nikon.

The article Stefan linked to discusses optical principles, but we should remember that photographic lenses are not perfect lenses.

In theory, a lens should be at its best at open aperture, but we know this isn't the case. In practice the various compromises mean that the resolution follows a bell shaped curve - best at middle apertures between f5.6 and f11 depending on the design. At very small apertures like f22 diffraction causes a loss of resolution.

Resolution is the ability to reproduce fine detail and is different to sharpness. All correctly focused lenses should be sharp, but DOF and contrast will affect our perception of this dramatically.

The 300mm shots Hyram linked to show the advantages of a 300mm as a close up lens, but No. 3 is not particularly sharp. This is I think either limited DOF at close ditance or maybe subject/camera movement. At 300mm the slightest movement will show when close up. A 100mm macro is much easier to handle at the required distances.

The essentials are that you sell what you manufacture, at a profit. The size of the company isn't a direct factor in that, so provided Pentax grow at a rate that they can sustain then all will be well.

Thanks for the info Stefan.

We haven't ever upgraded an existing OS, only moving to new ones as we buy new computers. As a consequence we have Windows XP, Vista and 7 and all of them function just fine. The most annoying one is I suppose is Vista that keeps asking questions about whether or not we want to proceed.

Can this be switched off? It's not a huge deal though as it's still fast enough.

If it's no news, don't bother about it.

Frankly, the future of all marques is always dependent on continuing success and you'll be pleased to hear that Pentax is expected to be back in profit by March 2010.

The same cannot be said of some others, but they'll all survive for the forseable future anyway. Don't forget Konica Minolta didn't exactly disappear and their users might have felt the same way as dangie at one point.

We can't waste our time not living life because we're worried that something will happen that may never happen.

Why not upgrade now to a K20D and enjoy the enhanced photographic experience it will bring?

No. You'll notice that when using the reduced size format the number of pixels used reduces from 24.5MP to 10.5MP - this is because we are now only using the centre part of the frame.

Some testers are better than others, so I wouldn't assume anything.

Yes there is indeed a difference.

My suspicions would start with camera movement and subject movement. The tripod needs to be especially sturdy with the longer lens and the 2 second self timer is an excellent way to ensure that the shutter release does not shake the camera.

The subject should also be totally still as the slightest movement will ruin the shot.

The macro lens is of course ideal for shots like this, but I've also had excellent results with the 55-300mm zoom, albeit it at small apertures of f8, f11 or even f16.

Perhaps someone has an old CRT no longer in use that you could borrow?