Which camera body do you have? The K-5 is best suited probably.

However, we could all reflect on the brilliant wildlife images shot over the years using manual focus...technique plays a huge part in this. For me too, so I'm not suggesting anyone is under par with their ability.

Practice, practice, practice...I've had success with the 55-300mm as well as the 60-250mm, but also I have used manual focus is some cases as well, prefocusing on a branch and just waitng patiently.

IT agreed that in the Gallery 1000 pixels to 1500 pixels was ideal, and in the forum 800px was ideal.

members are welocme to take their choice, but please don't post huge files in the forums as it slows everything down.

Interesting comment Pentaxophile. I do see softer images in the gallery, but many are not. I don't see any significant difference in my own either.

If the image you post was only 600 pixels in the Gallery I'm not sure it would trigger the avaiability of the large view.

Perhaps you could actually post an example so we could see exactly what you mean?

Some camera tests would comment on the accuracy of collimation, but usually that was just limited to a terse "the point of focus was correct" so it wasn't seen as a major issue.

Film flatness was more of an issue, particularly when film was left in the camera and would gain a "kink" in the transport mechanism. This was true of TLRs, with their complex film path, and 35mm cassettes at the point of exit from the cassette.

With 35mm film eventually it was realised that exiting from the cassette tangentially was helpful. In any event, the first shots made were often less sharp that subsequent shots, when a flat part of the film was reached.

Does my suggestion give you what you need Mike?

Sure, but I was only making the point that statistics in isolation can be very misleading. It wasn't a suggestion that the second figure I quoted was a serious statistic, although some politicians might think it's a great idea.

You can pull out different statistics on activity by doing a member search and changing the sorting order. Try a descending number of posts and you can count all the active members up, choosing whatever criteria you decide. You might, for example, choose to count everone with more than 100 posts.

For almost everything, even low light shots, where I upped the ISO. I could have left it at that, but for the staged events at the evening reception I took band shots, disco shots, etc., using the 18-135mm, the 35mm f2.4 and the 43mm f1.9.

So you could say 93.3% of users think 1.6fps unsatisfactory. The trouble with statistics is we could also say 0.19% of Pentax Users find 1.6fps unsatisfactory.

The latter figure is based on a guessed 7500 members of this board, only because the exact figure I haven't looked up, but it's the princilple I'm mentioning.

However, it's still a fair point and I'm sure that a variable rate, as previously mentioned, would be helpful to many people.

And that's still true. What has been added is the opportunity to pixel-peep, which means that we now attribute focusing errors to the technology rather than user error.

Sometimes adjustment may be helpful, especially with independed lenses, but generally it isn't. I have never adjusted a lens. I know when my lenses are sharp, it's when the pictures are sharp. And also, as greynolds999 states so succinctly, when they they are in focus they are in focus.

When they are not we may be at fault as well and we can always give a tweak using QuickShift in many cases.

Absolutely agree with Ken.