2 (practicalities) the aspects of a situation that involve the actual doing or experience of something rather than theories or ideas:

Dictionaries are like chocolate boxes - you can almost always find at least one selection you like.

Ditto.

That's because for many photographers it is not a misconception at all, we're simply talking in terms of practicalities rather than technicalities. It's cumbersome and unnecessary to talk about apparent magnification and stumble over ourselves to pay lip service to the technical realities every time the subject of sensor sizes and focal length equivalents comes up.

I suspect most of us on these forums are well aware of the technicalities, but we choose to discuss the subject in terms of the practicalities because that's all that matters when you're out in the field with a camera, and it take a good bit less effort.

Never felt the need for one. I don't find it awkward whatsoever to shoot in the vertical position without one because I'm extremely accustomed to it. I've handled a Canon with a grip which belongs to another member of my camera club a fair bit and in all honestly found it very cumbersome.

I have smallish hands and the K-5 seems a decent size for me. It's really already at the largest end of my scale for a comfortable, practical camera size. To an extent, I consider DSLRs to be inherently bulky and awkward. I will probably never go full frame.

In fact, the micro four thirds format, particularly the Olympus OMD E-M5 with it's excellent low light performance, would be seriously tempting me away from DSLRs if it wasn't for the fact that the available f/2.8 zooms for the format cost a grand a pop. My Tamron 17-50 (£300) and DA* 50-135 (£650) put together cost under grand and now that I have them both I wouldn't give them up. Paying 2K for the equivalent lens combo somehow doesn't appeal.

The beast has arrived! So far I've only had a change to take a few snapshots of the cat. I won't really get the chance to give it a proper workout until the weekend. But it's a lovely lens to handle and the build quality seems exceptional. Can't wait to take it out and put it through its paces!

Looking forward to it. It's arriving on Monday.

Tamron 17-50 is an awesome lens for the price. I'm sure you won't regret it.

I haven't posted in a while as I've been very busy but I feel compelled to share my excitement at just having ordered a DA* 50-135 from SRS via ebay - ex demo with full 2 year warranty for £649! It will be the perfect partner for my Tamron 17-50.

Better yet there is still another one left at the same price so I'm posting the details in the Leads to Deals forum.

I have the K-5 and K-5 II. In my case it is not so much an upgrade - I was looking for a second body in any case and the K-5 II happened to come along at the right time and at a price I could just about stretch to.

The low light AF is certainly MUCH improved. I was out with both bodies in the Edinburgh Christmas markets two nights ago and the difference between them is night and day (literally) with the K-5 often uncertain and hunting for focus, but the K-5 II nailing the focus more-or-less instantly every time, just as if it were in bright daylight.

I have not been able to detect any difference in image quality thus far (and I have been using ISO settings up to 8,000), but I haven't exactly been pixel peeping or agonising over side-by-side comparisons.They look pretty much the same to me and that's good enough for me.

In conclusion it's certainly worth the extra cost for me over the K-5 as a second body. I do a lot of night time hand-held shooting and the improved AF is just what's needed for that. My first couple of trips out with dual bodies also reinforced that I'd made the right decision - the experience of shooting with two bodies was a liberating one. I'm the kind of person where if I see an opportunity that's crying out for a different lens to capture I will generally change lenses, often changing back again after just a shot or two. Dual bodies is so much quicker and more natural - just take the shots and move on. I find myself taking a greater variety of shots too because my wide angle or telephoto (depending on the situation) is 'just there' and ready to use whenever I want it. It means I'm constantly trying out things I wouldn't normally bother changing lenses for.

Whether the K-5 II would be worth the extra cost if it were a straight upgrade rather than adding a second body is a rather more dubious question. For myself I would say the answer is a yes - I do love my hand-held low light photography. However for anybody who doesn't do a lot of that kind of thing I'd say it's probably a no. Outwith low light situations the K-5 II does seem to respond just that tiny bit faster in general - but it's marginal and something you probably wouldn't even notice if you haven't been constantly handling a K-5 for the last couple of years!

From what little testing of the K-II's low light AF capabilities I've had a chance to do so far, I must say I'm mighty impressed. The AF is incredibly sure-footed in extremely low light conditions, even when focusing on comparatively low contrast subjects. I basically tested this in a bedroom lit only through the window by a street light across the other side of the road. The K-5 II acquired focus quickly and consistently in this environment even using the DA 55-300, a lens with which the K-5 struggles to find focus at all in similar conditions. This is right up my alley as hand-held, night time photography is something I like to do a lot.