I prefer Version 1, but it's a personal choice.

Excellent, from all accounts it's up to the optical standard of the Limited version. Please do post some examples when you have some.

Thought this was an interesting and certainly eye-catching shot!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanlau/7024321375/in/photostream/

That's an odd one, I picked up the info from the Pentax Facebook page.

Who fancies a 360 degree one-shot image?

Perhaps when changing ISO something has inadvertently been set in error?

I'm not a big fan of auto ISO because shots side by side would exhibit different noise structure.

The only other explanation would seem to be a fault of some kind.

What we are all missing is the balance sheet, the production figures, the details of available workforce and capacity, the general details of what Pentax is on a day to day and long term basis.

No large company works in a vague and wooly way, they will be constantly planning, promoting, negotiating and there will be some very careful decision making going on.

Most of what we say is pure conjecture, but we can safely assume that in any company that has survived so far, people will be managing it as required.

There are plenty of signs of expansion coming through, but it all takes time, and I surmise that the time scale will already have been set, subject to satisfactory sales results I guess.

Algi, if you think the description is wrong, why not e-mail Chris and let him know?

You could also look at Peak Imaging, who are excellent, reasonably priced and ultra fast. If you were to upload your image this morning you should get the print tomorrow.

The best option is to follow their specification, but certainly to resize yourself using Photoshop. Size as required, 300ppi, sRGB. When resizing, always use the default resampling Bicubic. If you have an appropriate version, for upsizing use Bicubic Smoother.

USM for a large file like that, I would start with 125%, radius 2.2 pixels, threshold 3.

The recommendations I have given assume you have no more specific requirements from the printer and they should do for any print house to work with.

As for 1000 pixel wide images, while we're on the subject, I use 50% (K-5) 75% (Q), 1.3 pixels radius and threshold 3.

File can happily be saved as a quality 12 JPEG in all cases, avoiding using the optimised option, which can cause compatibility issues.

Hope that helps!

I was just thinking that it's worth remembering that "covering" a range of focal lengths does not have to mean that we have no gaps. Walking backwards and forwards can fill those gaps quite happily as it's rarely essential to be able to use, say, 67mm as well as, say, 70mm.

The simple way round is to use the 16-45mm combined with the 55-300mm, leaving lots of change from £1200. I doubt very much that anyone would notice any technical difference in practice between those lenses and more expensive ones. Technique and skill will have far more effect on the outcome.

The entire range requested is almost satisfied by the new 18-270mm. apart from maximum aperture perhaps, and adding the 12-24mm to that, or even just the diminutive 15mm, would be a nice duo for travel.