Raw Therapee: http://www.rawtherapee.com

Free and very good (just make sure you download the 2.4 version, it's miles better). After using this, I no longer use the bundled Pentax software.

Yes, I saw this yesterday, it's a pretty good review. I often get the impression, from a lot of reviewers, that the K20D (and, indeed, the K10D) doesn't quite hit the spot simply because it's not as user-friendly as some of the offerings from Canon et al. A photographer's camera it is indeed.

PSP X2 is very good, no question. In some ways better than PS CS3, and other ways not. As for professionalism, don't get caught up in the Adobe snobbery, it's plain ridiculous. If you know what you're doing, with regard to image editing, then X2 will allow you to produce equally "professional" results as PS, no question.

I've been a professional in the web design/graphics industry for over ten years and I've steadfastly refused to shell out huge bucks for PhotoShop and Illustrator. I do, however, use Dreamweaver and (perhaps more relevantly, Fireworks) as there's sadly no real competition. And when clients have sent me PS and Illustrator files then I've either opened them in Fireworks (which is a fantastic program, and MUCH better than PS for image manipulation and creation) or in Xara (which embarrasses Illustrator for 99% of all tasks). I've been involved in projects for the likes of Motorola, GE, Vodafone, American Express and many more big names, and have produced first class photo/artwork without needing PS.

Simply use what you need, rather than what everyone else tells you to use, and the only way to find out, is to download a trial of the relevant software and see how it works for you.

No, please don't, cos I'm after one.

Brilliant! Just downloaded and played with it. Seems to have a lot to offer, and is pretty quick, too. Many thanks for the link.

It's not available, sadly. However the latest version of PS stitches panoramas together fabulously.

I had a similar choice to make a few weeks ago, just before the K20 was officially launched. I looked very carefully at the specs, read all the reports I could lay my hands on, and weighed up the cost factors.

It seemed to me that the K10 offered almost the same functionality as the K20, and that the difference between 14 and 10 megapixels (in real terms) wasn't nearly as much as most people would think. Had it been 20 megapixels I think that may have persuaded me otherwise.

Do consider the extra demands on your PC/Mac, also. Having tried editing on my old system (XP1900, 1 gig RAM) with 16 bit RAW files and my new PC (Quad core 2.4, 3 gigs RAM), there is a world of difference in the time it takes to complete CPU-heavy actions. So much so, that I wouldn't be prepared to work on 16 bit RAW files on anything less than my current machine. So, apart from the initial price differential between the K10 and the K20, you would well find yourself in the frustrating position of having to seriously upgrade your computer hardware in order to fully use the advantages of the K20.

So what do I think of the K10? Well, it has difficulty in focusing in poor light on occasion (but, to be honest, I tend to manually focus a lot anyway), the metering isn't perfect (but is it on any camera?), and the kit lens it comes with isn't quite the quality I was expecting (though certainly far from poor). But overall I think it's a fantastic camera, and I don't for one minute regret buying it, and am certain that I made the right choice in getting the K10 over the K20.

Now when the K30 appears (with 21 Mp sensor, 3" swivel Live View, noiseless ISO 12,800) I might well be tempted.

Actually, that's very true.

Sad, though, that hardware can't be designed to be modular and upgradeable, instead of just chucking it in the bin (er, I mean on Ebay).

As the K10 is literally half the price of the K20, this was my main reason for buying one a couple of weeks ago. A simple question of excellent value. Few situations, I suggest, warrant more than 10 megapixels, and the difference between the two cameras isn't that vast.

One of the big differences it seems, and doesn't seem to get mentioned in the press, is that digital SLRs are disposable. Think about it, years ago when you bought a film camera, you'd keep it for years. Now, because of the Resolution Race, paranoia sets in, and everyone changes their cameras for the latest bunch of megapixels every two years or so. I mean anyone who goes about in public with a 4 MP camera will likely be hanging their head in shame. Be that way for 6MP too, soon (if it's not already).

The camera manufacturers must be rubbing their hands in glee. Finally the golden goose has arrived, while the public gets techno-fleeced yet again.

Complete rubbish. OK, now dry your eyes . Very good, much better than I was expecting. Some gloriously saturated colours and I loved the depth of field obtained with that prime lens. And such a pleasure to see monochrome in a proper setting. Over all, very nice work.