No its not. The only images where some noise seems beneficial is in decent light and artificially added ... Then it is just another filter 'effect', nothing to do with the debate about the camera / photographer equation.

Well that's a different question ... Will giving an average photographer a greater camera mean the photos will be a little less average?

I don't agree with it at all. Of course the photographer needs the 'vision' and skills to do well with any camera, but a particular camera that shines in some technical aspect that emphasises a specific element of the capture (eg autofocus, high iso performance, practical photo capture aids such as low light af assist etc etc ... Well, those cameras will always be worth seeking out, they WILL lead to better photos.

The points about noise and grain are nonsense...digital noise does nothing in low light to enhance an image, its just a scourge to be reduced. Give a great photographer an even better camera and the photos will be even greater.

We're off for two weeks soon and I'll have 2 32gb cards, but a lot of that is to cover video recordings. I'll copy each days files to a laptop at night and then also burn it all onto a Double layer dvd (8.5gb). These can easily be stored safely in a range of spaces, or even posted home as an 'off-site ' backup. I keep the files on each card until both these processes' have been done, then use it again in alternation of the other.

Online options have to be qualified with questions about the internet connection type (real broadband or mobile), upload speeds available (which can be glacial), and data costs. I'll have ee 3g mobile internet, but won't even bother trying to upload my RAWs and .avi's ... Guaranteed exercise in futility.

Maybe spot metering would be best, with some plus compensation ?

Huh! Whats going on, our gwing's normally on MY side Rob, have you had a good look .... are you sure,... you can't see any halos or something? - maybe a halo on the catchlight?.... No? OK, not a problem, thats fine then ... I'll just go a sulk for a while. BUT --- I'LL BE BACK

Its amazing what a bit of processing can do for contrast issues now Philip, and clearly it has worked there. I guess the better you start from at the capture stage the better you get at the end though.

I think the special position of the moon on that night might rule out coastal shots with the 560mm in that case then Alan - you may be forced inland in order to get the whole moon in the frame.

Or is that heads down for you? Richard, just a point, from the position at which you would be seeing it I think you might have to invert the camera - either by twisting your wrists uncomfortably or perhaps more easily with a KAF (Lunar-Type) inverter adaptor, in order to avoid a vertigo sensory effect while taking the shots.

My initial reaction Sancho is that apart from the 'advantage' of not having to change lens, I'm not sure whether there is much more to gain from moving to one of these 'superzoom' type lenses. Personally a lot of the fun of a DSLR is the creative boost given when swapping lenses and using lenses dedicted to specific tasks.

So, apart from the 50mm, your choices would not be for me ... but if you feel the single long zoom is important for you, then the Pentax is surely worth the extra both for the longer reach and the weather resistance. Please let us know what you think, and report back!

I agree with Horst on the kit lens ... Check out my latest photos thread featuring the 18-55 WR! ... link