So you have two approaches so far, both being quite modest on kit used.

Anyone else?

I get the exposure right and do minimal adjustment afterwards, so it saves a mass of time and computer space. I know some do batch conversions, but I don't see the point of shooting RAW unless we are going to deal with each exposure as an individual.

As regards the reception, etc., I will use available light and mercillessly up the ISO value as needed, Sue uses flash as she sees fit and we see which approach we prefer afterwards. Belt and braces approach! We often end up using the more atmospheric available light shots.

I thought I'd start a thread so we can explain our choice of Pentax kit for weddings. The subject has been aired a few times, but condensing thoughts into one spot might be helpful.

Sue and I shoot a wedding together, covering different aspects at the same time, for example Sue covering the bride before the wedding and me the groom and best men. Then we shoot the wedding ceremony with me at the front and Sue waiting for bride and groom to exit.

For groups, we get someone to identify who is who and then Sue ushers them about and I shoot the groups. Then we do candids as well, covering whatever we fancy. We also do some experimental shots, depending upon opportunity, just to see if anything special crops up.

Kit is kept to a bare minimum. For me, 18-135mm, 35mm, 43mm and 360 flashgun. The flash is used very sparingly as I prefer to use available light wherever possible. Tripod only for a series of groups, such as guests, where it's a production line of people moving past the camera. Often no need at all for a tripod.

For Sue, 18-135mm and 50mm f/1.4.

And that's it. We shoot in JPEG and usually use four 4GB cards, two each. We rarely have to change a battery of the K-5, but have spares if needed. Likewise, lots of spare cards.

Backup camera is a K20D and a few other lenses are also taken along. A lens can fail as well as a camera, so it needs to be covered. Backup lenses include 16-45mm, 18-55mm, 55-300mm, 100mm Macro.

I have to confess that I looked at this horrible shimmering mess on my Q screen and after a few moment just switched it off. You are not alone!

It's focal plane shutters as used in DSLRs that limit the flash synch speed.

You're right to point this out as it's something rarely mentioned.

Unfortunately, the markings on a lens are not that accurate. The cereal box will also have a thickness, so the writing on it will be less than 3m away.

The higher end bodies have the focal plane marked on them, and it's correct that focusing should be measured from that point, not from the lens front for example.

The technique sounds very inaccurate to me.

Partly that reduced DOF at wider apertures makes the image snap in and out better and partly because a very dark image, such as when stopped down, is too dark for the eye to judge anything.

You've moved the argument back to the lens with this, whereas you started suggesting it was something else, or so it seemed.

The E-3 is quite bulky considering its small format, so moving to Pentax will give you a weight and size reduction that you may find welcome.

The biggest things for me are the excellent ergonomics and the superb colour and general image quality. In my opinion, Pentax just knocks the opposition for six on these counts, and has consistently.

You would presumably be then selling your Olympus kit on eBay, which I think should be fairly easy to do. It usually sells very well.

The lens of the eye causes the DOF. Putting your finger up causes a reduced aperture to give an increased DOF. Bright light also closes down the eye, just like a camera lens. The retina does not have a DOF, it's the lens.

AF doesn't work properly with small apertures because there's not enough light to make it reliable, just like our eyes.

It seems to me there's a problem with the language Algi. The things you describe don't have a depth of field. Lenses have a depth of field.

If you are saying that there's some leeway and error in the point that focusing devices select, then in the case of these being measured by either the human eye or an electronic system I'm sure you'd be right.

The electronic system is probably more accurate because it doesn't compensate and doesn't get tired.