Ah yes Alan, that's probably right ... So you mean that its mostly the run of the mill photographers who have moved to posting elsewhere and the better ones who have stayed here?

You know on Bing images when you hover over a thumbnail it quickly pops out bigger for a quick look, then jumps back down again as soon as you move away ... It helps to check an image quickly and is much faster than clicking to open the image totally. If is was possible technically it would be a good additional function on our gallery here, allowing us to review many more images to assess them .

I have very limited forum time at present, (not even enough time for one forum, let alone two ), school holidays and we're on holiday on the Dorset coast, so anything that helps me to see more gallery images more quickly at a viewable size will be an interesting improvement. I'll make a suggestion to the team ...or should I mention it in the 'please sort it out' thread?

Call it 'Just another pointless thread' ! I can't agree that any of my comments are more interesting than the images ... Without the shots there would be no commentary anyway. I should correct one thing ... I said 'gleaming white stonework ', which is clearly No 2, and I was talking about 1, but the polarizer has helped the stonework on the first as well.

Bright sunny days and blue cloudy skies...great for photography! I think no.1 is the best, the centred composition works well and suits it, unlike no.2, where the spaces on the right fight for attention with the lighthouse. The 1st has the best use of polariser as well, the right amount to give the perfect blue in the sky and gleaming clean white stonework. The polariser is too strong in 5 I think, giving an odd blue tone. I think the lighting is great and complements 1, but agree with Alan on 4, which has dull lighting and lacks contrast. Its good to get shafts of light in the middle distance, but it can't make up for loads of basically unlit foreground.

Its a most interesting and stimulating set, and shows off the camera, lens and photographer superbly ... Now which if these are the most important again .... ?

Great innovative use of equipment ... I'm guessing that your use of the TC without glass turns it into a type of extension tube?. Also would like to know more about the lens, who made it,what age, auto-diaphragm setting or not, and us it a full macro? Its all worked very well, nice gentle lighting and soft colours. Perhaps it could take a bit more sharpening on the in focus areas ...

Check out Vanguard ... Top quality and great value.

So it was for the feel ... Ergonomics are an important part of what a camera offers, so that's a perfectly valid reason, although it wouldn't explain a choice between 's' or non 's'

So the question is then, dies the feel of the camera, a good a d valuable quantity to you, help you get better shots and therefore be a better photographer?

There's no reason for 'old' to equate to unsophisticated. I don't see old lenses as limited technically really.... Today I was out in the streets of swanage with the 'A' 28mm f2.8, using auto-exposure in Av mode, exposure compensations and flicking instantly between catch-in-focus mode and normal shooting instantly with the af.s m lever on the K7, a great example of the marriage of 30 year old and modern technologies helping and enabling greater shots more efficiently. Its not really about the age of any items, more their effectiveness for us now. Simon, I sure I was not specifically telling you or anyone not to get an 's' model ... It was about seeing where the effect would be most obvious given anyone's personal processing style and workflow. Bye the way, why did you choose the K5IIs? Did you feel it would help you take better shots?

Will, I take your points, but really, once we get beyond the very limiting meaning of 'bad' ...we all know there's plenty of gear out there that we wouldn't waste our money on!

But the more sophisticated the tool the more options and creative choices become available, and realizable. A better camera doesn't stifle innovation, it frees the creative spirit ... You need to read the manual though. Better to have as many possibilities as you can on hand in a single camera ... That will help to take greater shots.

Ken, I didn't see the article as primarily saying there was no bad equipment now, I saw it as saying that the tools come second and a better camera won't help anyone take better images. I can't accept that at all, its nonsense, and it depends how we define 'bad', but really there still are designs that are less effective, or not effective at all and should be avoided...I won't know any of those because I chose Pentax (lol). But that little compact has been spoken of here negatively, and really, my own K7 is frequently derided right here on this forum... You'd think it couldn't be switched on in anything less than bright sunshine! But its a superb image making tool, and has made me a better photographer undoubtedly.

Agree completely Yves. There are a very few situations where a poor quality (technically) image might enhance a capture, as a sort of retro effect, but that's now the domain of instagram and the likes. Lets not restrict this to sensor performance either. There are plenty of practical photo taking aids built into high spec cameras that make a huge difference to 'bagging the shot'. Referring back to Marks comments about the beach action shots an the glistening water ... Not something that's ever tripped up the K7, and in that situation I'm definitely a better photographer as a result of using my K7.

Ken, its well and truly time to change the title of this thread ...