Whilst the point you make has truth in it Algi, the context isn't as relevant.

I doubt very much that David or anyone else would send a low resolution copy of an image to a magazine. They would send the full sized one, properly prepared to specification. If they didn't it would get chucked out.

The image provided for a web forum is something else and it can only really be viewed sensibly at the normal screen size as presented. If it is then it will look fine. Many images seen are less than optimal, but not everyone knows how to prepare them for web.

If you feel bad about it, don't do it...time Gentlemen please.

It must be time to draw a line under this and go back to the purpose of the thread - the images posted.

They are rather good, so let's not detract from them.

I think it must be your screen resolution Algi, I can't see anything untoward here.

There may be some slight variations between lens samples, but we've had around 8 or so 18-55mm lenses so far and they've all been pretty much the same. The weakest was an early MkII (non-WR) lens, but even then not by much.

In arduous conditions like this I'd go for the K-5 offer from SRS and couple it up with a WR lens. The 18-135mm would be great, but I'd also take a fast screw-focus lens such as the 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8, just in case the motor in the lens fails or gets frozen.

Belt and braces approach as far as possible, so a small compact as well as backup. Pentax MX-1 or Ricoh GR would be my suggestions, but just maybe a WG-3 would make some sense in the conditions you might face.

As the K-5 is WR and so is the 18-55mm WR it makes sense to buy the two together. Unless of course the body only offer changes the calculation. Normally we'd expect a body and lens kit to be cheaper than buying the two separately, but these days anything's possible.

MrS, I appreciate your comment and it's saved me from feeling like that bowl of petunias....

It's a bit tight on the fuschia, however we pronounce it, but unfortunately it had to be because of all the other things in the way. Not ideal, but I liked the flower itself. You could argue that I should have left it out of the set and put something else in, but in the end I liked it so there it is!

Fair enough, it's a personal choice. The 43mm or indeed the 40mm are both actually rather nice for flower portraits, IMHO. Zeiss made a 60mm macro lens for film, so the 40mm will be liked well enough by anyone who found that a good length.

There are many different approaches, but the "dreamy" look wasn't what I had in mind here. I suspect you would enjoy Abriachan, but I don't know if visiting there would be an option for you in terms of distance.