It's a fair point Smeggypants. How much it affects the point of focus is hard to say - when diagrams are published they tend to be exagerrated to make the point, but the actual arc involved in many situations is part of a huge circle and we could be in mm territory. Focusing isn't that accurate anyway.

But the point stands and it probably becomes more relevant the closer we get and very relevant at macro distances.

I can see what you mean. I've had a look at the full size original and I think what we are seeing is a splash of light around her shoulders and arm that has made the red slightly lighter there.

If you want a selection, you can look at the full res versions in the actual review, which should give a better indication.

Having said that, there is some fringing in the kit lens, not particularly bad, I've seen much worse. The camera will correct it if you wish and are shooting in JPEG.

If shooting in RAW then software correction in the RAW converter will do the job.

Whilst I had the K-5 II I made a point of using all the digital filters and for those who like soft focus there looks to be potential in the Soft filter.

I'm going to try that for portraits. Not for all of them of course, that would be boring, but when it seems appropriate.

All telephoto lenses do is mean we can stand further away. As a consequence the perspective is compressed, no two ways about it. There's no point misleading people and confusing them.

In the hope that it asists, I quote from the Pentax publication "The Eyes", page 15:

Yes, telephoto lenses magnify. Yes, they result in perspective compression.

Flat lighting gives flat images, with no modelling of the features. There are plenty of ways to use lighting to give modelling, or shape, to the face. An egg is a suitable object to experiment on, trying to make it look different shapes with different lighting arrangements.

Telephoto compression is something entirely different. Modest telephoto lenses are generally considered the most flattering for portraits. This is because we stand further back and the nose doesn't seem out of proportion to the rest of the face.

I think it will. If I wanted one I'd be moving quickly, whilst stocks last.

Metering options change the way the camera measures the light level, so technique will have a bearing on this, especially with spot metering. The use of spot metering needs to be understood and it causes a bit of heartache sometimes for the unwary.

It's an excellent lens.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/smc-pentax-da-35mm-f-2-4-al-lens-review-16804

Q and K-5 both pointed at the same evenly lit surface - both gave me exactly the same readout.

I would expect the K20D to show a faster shutter speed as its exposures are slightly darker than the current range.

There is another factor that hans't been mentioned yet. Shutter speeds are not fixed at the value that appears in the display - they are infinitely variable. The display indicates the nearest pratical value.

Suppose the actual exposure was about half way between two shutter speeds. It would be possible with some modest variation for one camera to indicate one way and the other to indicate the other way. Hey presto, one stop difference indicated but actually maybe a tenth of a stop actual difference. Possibly.