Wow, it's amazing that consumer photographic equipment can see that far into space.

Did you see any black cuboids with a size ratio 1:4:9 ?

I've had numerous cameras swabbed for explosives over the last few years, the first time it happened (I think with my big 645) I didn't know what they were doing so I asked and they were happy to tell me. I also find it quite re-assuring and it doesn't bother me at all, as long as they're professional.

Sometimes I carry numerous, mainly old, cameras and lenses in my carry-on luggage (I stock up while I'm in the UK ) and when I do that they always hand-check my luggage.

All of this seems a bit daft as they seem to have forgotten that timers exist, and have done for quite a while. A bomb in a laptop in the hold will be just as devastating as one in the cabin. The only real difference that I see is that checked-in luggage gets x-rayed more heavily and maybe they can detect explosives there more easily.

It includes a special system to compensate for having a sensor with very poor dynamic range

At the moment it's limited to certain countries so will not affect most people unless they have a connecting flight through one of those countries.

If it does expand to include other countries then the baggage handlers will get rich and travel insurance prices will shoot up as the claims come rolling in.

Very nice, especially the first two.

I understand that C41 colour films can be developed with B&W chemicals into B&W negatives, though I've never done it myself.

I saw this but it's already been posted, however the difference compared to SRS is now over £300. More than ten available on their website and a two-year guarantee.

JL seem to have less Pentax gear these days.

Some beautiful stuff there, rare, sought-after items which are too expensive to possibly get approval for from the minister of finance.

I quickly made this diagram to demonstrate the principle as I understand it. At the top is a telephoto shot and at the bottom is a wide angle shot.

[IMG]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/jonnymacd/ScreenHunter_14482%20Mar.%2014%2008.29_zpspoyrst6k.jpg[/IMG]

In both resultant images the subject would be the same size (it occupies the same proportion of the image, ie. the distance between the black lines which indicate the image edges). However, you can see that the background will be very different indeed (red arrows). Furthermore, on the issue of perspective distortion and the need for a 3D subject in order to demonstrate it, notice the distance from the photo edge (the black lines) of the front of the subject and the back of the subject. In the telephoto shot (top) it is very similar while in the wide angle shot the difference is much greater, and this is what produces perspective distortion (big noses in portraits being the most common example given).

So, while the subject overall may occupy the same space in the photo (note that I don't say it's the same size), the images will be very different.

I tried the Sigma 18-50/2.8 many years ago and returned it as it was very soft wide open. I bought the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and, though perhaps a little less well built, the optics are far superior. It's the lens I always recommend as the one to replace the kit lens. I'd certainly avoid that Sigma.