No absolutely not - no rankling at all The only thing thats happening is I think my 'down under' sense of humour is being misunderstood I welcome all comments, negative & positive - I've said it before , the more the merrier, any attention is good attention! I'm delighted as always that the images have provoked opinions to be expressed. I will look carefully and try and get a more consistent clolour balance on set from the same location in future - a good point.

Darkmunk, I am really glad you were prompted into action by my annoying backchat (its done it before I think) - much better to have a full range of opionions for everyone to consider and relate to their own feelings about the images - thats what its all about! (I'd better be careful with the backchat, might be against the Ts & Cs , don't want to have my threads DELETED - thats the last thing I'd want)

But is the processing excessive ? What do others think ..... I did aim for a natural approach. My comment about being told to 'Get a K5' is just a bit of tongue in cheek - something I've been told before when bemoaning DR issues using the K7 ... but I'm not being told it as much now for some reason ....

I don't see any reason to worry about the K5 / II /s or indeed K7 video file format or codecs. There is absolutely no way that anyone would want to be uploading .avi files from these cameras directly to the internet - the files sizes are way too big to be practical - but the same can be said of AVCHD lite or H.264. For any online use you need to re-encode to a new format (MPEG4 is best for the internet I think), and of course you will apply cuts and other edits at the same time - the video will be compressed also to produce managable file sizes for the internet.

The camera recorded video file is just a start point really - its intended to reproduce and store the best quality the camera is capable of - then the user has to decide how to edit the video and output the best format for each intended use. Thats all another subject of course ....

In fact, I prefer .avi from my K7 to the .MTS (AVCHD - Lite) I get from a Panasonic Lumix bridge - .avi is less compressed (and bigger of course) but that means it is easier for computers to work with, less memory required and less processor power to work with it in an editing programme. This results in very smooth working - I find very smooth video as well generally.

As far as video goes I think the jury is out at present ... part of the new processing function of the newest cameras involves a move to 'Movie Shake' reduction, a type of processsed software based shake reduction, similar in some ways to how video editing software applies shake reduction. I'm not a user of any of these newer cameras, but there has been plenty of discussion, some recently, with some users feeling that they preferred the 'Sensor Shake' reduction (some call it 'mechanical') implemented on the earlier K5 / K7 models.

This type of SR technology, whilst possible on the latest models as they do have sensor shake reduction for photos, for some reason is not enabled on these latest cameras, the technicians having taken the view that the software (processed) type is preferable... as I said the jury's out ....

I can't comment on the Prime Processors relative capabilites, other than to say that these updates over time have generally been accepted as improvements, certainly in processing speed and allowing higher burst rates - so in general 'newer is better' applies I think.

Thanks, then I'll keep an eye out , as well as for all the other excellent suggestions that have been made by people here...thanks again all!

That sounds like an interesting lens .. F35-70, sorry are lenses (a opposed to FA) autofocus? As others have been saying about 28mm I'd be concerned about it being wide enough, and its not f2.8 for my portraits, but as you say, not much to lose.

redbussa99, I have thought about a 17-70, they seem that much more expensive though, and I was looking to supplement the 18-55 rather than replace it, but maybe that might be a better strategy?

Is the flashgun inside that box?

Thanks Philip, colourful was the aim, that's for sure. I took the approach of masking off green and yellows to avoid boosting these much, and cranked up blues, reds and magentas to highlight those standout flowers. The skies have a small amount of software polarising filter applied.

Colour balance? I set Awb for a few and daylight plus a couple of notches yellow, and I didn't make any white balance corrections in processing. The light on those very bright ones was intense and of a different tone to the cooler balance from under the trees, where the foliage is more green.

I didn't process with the aim of equalising colour balance, and they were all taken within about 1.5 hours. I don't batch process, I deal with each one completely individually, so I guess that explains the variations. Thanks again for taking a look and your thoughts.

Awwhh, Will, it had to happen, lets get back to the PU of old with some more negative and unfriendly constructive criticism lets just have a new forum section 'Burst our photographic bubbles' ... That might even pull a few more characters back over here to start taking pot shots at me again! I knew I was risking it going out into the great outdoors again, should have stayed in the big smoke with my camera

Thanks for those points though (i DO appreciate it) ...I'll have a look at those shadows, and will keep working on the compos ... Keep an eye out ,I've got quite a few more coming from this and another nearby garden .

Thanks John, do the powerzoom FA lenses have any specific extra letters to indicate the powerzoom feature?

Thanks for taking a look I've always found it easy to get images up on here and the resizing seems to take care of itself ... That's at least one plus point for us old fogeys