totally agree with this, and in fact it's the only thing they could do that might make me hold off and save for a K-3 instead of taking advantage of any price drop on the K5II once the K-3 comes out. Edit: actually that's not true, a non-crippled K mount would have the same effect, but that seems orders of magnitude less likely.

My K10 is looking tired but ultimately it still does the job, I want the best AF I can get when I upgrade because I expect my next camera to be with me at least as long as the K10 has been (I bought my K10 in early 2007)

This seems like the most likely outcome to me, even with the new AF system on the K-5II, AF and metering still look like the low hanging fruit. Might also see some improvements to the video since that's an area where Pentax lag behind the competition a bit (even though personally I'm quite happy for them to use as little effort in that area as they can get away with, it's important to some people).

I can't speak for the K-5 John, but I'm 90% sure that's not true on my K10D.

On green mode you loose menu options, but P is considered a "creative" mode and lets you mess the shot up in any way you like.

I believe the cameras which have scene modes on the dial also lock out certain menu options in scene modes and auto-picture, but not P, Av, Tv or M (or Sv and TAv if present).

I have my Av mode set to aperture on the rear dial and ISO on the front, and my camera stays in Av mode 99.9% of the time. This may be a leftover from my first introduction to SLR photography on an MV.

I know nothing about this subject, but for me the lighting in the footwells seems a little high, it's drawing my eyes to them.

I'm being very picky though, much better than I would get if I tried the same thing.

I wish I'd seen these before I looked around a Jag earlier in the year, it took me AGEs to find that stupid bonnet catch on the wrong side!

certainly a common way of presenting such an image sequence, but I'd be very disapointed if the camera assumed that this was the intended output.

99 and 999 suggest a limit imposed by a limited number of digits in the readout.

2000 seems to imply a limit of the "well surely that should be enough for anyone" class, which the IT industry has repeatedly shown to be a silly thing to say.

Actually most RAW files are TIFF under the hood, with some extra headers for additional metadata. TIFF is more of a container format really, lots of options for compression, bit depth and so on.

it used to bother me long ago when activating the screen on a digiral compact meant burning the battery in about 15 minutes. These days the screens are so much more efficient, it doesn't matter anymore. In fact in the majority of cases the screen is better than a compact viewfinder because you don't have issues with paralax and zooming.

strictly speaking there's no reason why a scanner couldn't have a RAW format, but it's less necessary.

Scanners typically take red, green and blue measurements at all positions, removing one reason to need RAW as there is no de-mosaicing to do.

The other advantage to RAW is bit depth, which scanning to 48 bit TIFF will solve since that gives you 12 bits per channel, just like RAW.

This next suggestion I haven't tried so not sure how well it will work, but try scanning to 48bit TIFF and opening the result in RAWTherapee. Assuming RT can handle high bit rate TIFFs (I think it can), you should get the vast majority of the adjustments you normally get on a RAW file. RT allows editing of normal images as well as RAWs, though obviously you don't get the options which don't make sense for a normal image and you can only work with the data which is present.

it has always been my opinion that Green is there so that you can hand your camera to your Gran to take a picture of you with your favourite sports/music/other star who has suddenly and unexpectedly turned up when there is no one else around who knows what to do with a camera.

Green is like Sat Nav, it will result in a photo, it may or may not be the best possible, but it will work. A little knowledge and a map may yield better results, but the auto-generated result is better than nothing.