If you want a specific reply, then, as before, the best thing to do is put in a report with specific details.

This thread was for questions for Pentax, which has now closed and awaits their reply, so IT won't be monitoring it.

You can find the report problem button at the bottom of every page on the site.

This isn't really the thread for these discussions, you'll get it noticed better in the section dedicated to General Digital Photography.

150 x 1.5 = 225, so the minimum shutter speed should be 1/250s. Three stops advantage means we might expect to get away with 1/30s with SR on, so 1/50s is OK, but only just.

We need some depth of field, so f/5.6 has probably always been OK. Typically, f/5.6 primes have always been a rather nice, lighter and smaller option than huge f/2.8 lenses. A 400mm f/2.8 is a very seriously big beast of a lens. I wouldn't like to have to use it, and I certainly wouldn't like the cost. If you need that sort of lens, then a large company is buying it I suspect, for someone with a very specific need.

I do know that some members have provided more specific information to IT in a report, and those issues have been resolved. Just now, the site seems back to speed, for me anyway.

If you want a specific answer then make a report, but IT will need full details of what circumstances cause slow response and what times, etc. I would imagine it's hard to solve a vague slowness report when it's possible to log on and everything is fine, like now.

I don't recall anybody saying that LennyBloke, but we're all trying to make suggestions as to how to minimise the problem now. I'm sure IT are constantly looking at speed, they work full time on the sites.

From what I can see, the problem seems to lie with some adverts not loading and causing everything to hang, so I wonder if those of us who use AdBlocker have the same speed problem?

Doesn't the 560mm meet the 600mm requirement? It's so close, and some 600mm lenses might not even be exactly 600mm.

We now have long zooms and primes - 60-250mm, 300mm, 150-450mm, 560mm. In one sense, lenses can never be long enough for wildlife, so being in the right place is just as important, if not more so. The best kingfisher shots I've ever seen were taken with a 100mm macro lens, from a hide at the side of a river. The photographer was stood in water, wearing waders hopefully.

To be fair, all books on nature will be way behind the curve as to what is available in the Pentax range.

Why change to Chrome just for one website? Change for them all, we can import all our IE favourites into Chrome and it works faster. I used to use IE all the time, but it's too "sticky" on ads loading for some sites.

Firefox works as well, but I tend to come back to Chrome because of its speed advantage.

I'd have it repaired for that cost because you end up with a camera with known history, rather than a second hand one that could need the same repairs very soon.

I'm not sure there's a realistic gap for wildlife Rob, the 150-450mm fits the bill, plus of course the 560mm, which is quite compact for its length.

Could we really afford a 600mm f/4 or 400mm f/2.8? The existing lenses are pushing it, but just about affordable. It depends on our circumstances i know, but I'd find a £10,000 lens to be totally out of reach, even a £5000 one.