Not every image will suit the same aspect ratio, so I make images of all sorts of shapes and print them myself.

The only constant is that I print them on a sheet of A3 paper. I then cut it in a rotary trimmer to whatever shape the actual image is, usually leaving a neat white line around it.

So I don't think it really matters what the aspect ratio of the sensor is...

For the very reason I want to be able to read the files for as long as possible, I store the originals as in-camera. These original JPEGs should be readable by any program on any computer for a very long time.

How long will support for Kodak RAW files from their DSLR range be maintaoned? Is it defunct already? I only cite this as an example of what I expect could happen. A PEF file specific to the *istDS might not be recognised by Photoshop 25......

Of course DNG is another matter, and I will be giving it a try at least, when the K10D cameras arrive!

I've settled quite happily for the APS-C sized sensor. The quality is there, obviously it will get better, but it's good enough for the A3 exhibition prints that I make.

Large sensors are not always the answer - how about the ill-fated and expensive Kodak DSLRs? Huge price, huge file size and lousy quality...

The only point I still disagree on is the RAW vs JPEG debate. After extensive testing I could only conclude that RAW was potentially better than JPEG sometimes and sometimes was not. It depends on subject as well as the photographer's skill level.

I do use JPEGs for large landscape prints, and they are as good or better than many other photographers' RAW originated images. I think too many take up RAW without really appreciating why they are doing it, they just feel they should.

Feel free to disagree!

You could always use a wider angle lens with your 67 and then process in Photoshop - that would likely cost very much less than a shift lens?

The cheapest shift lens is built into Photoshop. If you scan your images and then use Transform>Skew and similar features then you can correct converging verticals very easily. The basic commands will leave you with quite a squat image, so you may also have to stretch it vertically to get an accurate representation of the original.

It does work very well and gives you a good result. Of course, as with the shift lens, the perspective you end up with is quite wrong. The converging verticals are correct, but we just don't like looking at them!

But how can they be described as the same when the Pentax is rated at 1620 mAh instead of 1500 mAh? They may be physically the same size and design, but they are most definitely not the same.

After spending hundreds of pounds on a K10D I don't think I'd risk a battery being the wrong specification. It could be OK, but if not it could be a hugely expensive mistake.

We will be buying a spare Pentax battery for each of our K10D bodies.

From the prices I've seen so far, I was expecting around £50 GBP for the battery. Probably $50 as well....

I presume they all do that - did the question assume that the life of the camera would exceed 9,999 images?

I wonder how many will reach that, not because they can't but because they will be upgraded long before.

So far, my *istDS is up to just short of a modest 4000 shots....

I have my *istDS counting continuously even when cards are changed, so I presume the same can be set on the *istD?