I like the look of it

Is it a PentaxUser who decides membership fees? Or is it just coincidence that a junior pays £16-45 a year :

Popped along to the shop yesterday and bought one - turned out to be £25 instead of 28.

Works a treat - Is it the general consensus that it's best to get one adapter for each lens so save wear on the adapter?

After a few mentions in the forum of ebay k-mount prices going sky high recently, I was beginning to wonder if it really is the right time to be searching for the <elusive> pka tamron adaptall 2 mount. According to completed listings on ebay, someone paid 60 quid for one a week ago - I know of a shop where I can buy one for £28. Is this a good deal? The ebay price seems vastly inflated

If I purchase one I intend to use it with the Tamron 135mm f2.8, which I acquired a while ago without a mount but suspect that it might be quite a useful lens. Does anyone have any experience of it? Thanks

That joke was waiting to be made!

Fraser,
Camera panning is a great technique to master and can get some superb results, but there is another way - the way which I think may have been used to make the image to which you posted a link. With an all over sharp, non blurred photo (such as the ones you're wishing you could get away from), photoshop can be used to 'motion blur' selected parts of the image, leaving the main subject sharp. If you have photoshop, (or I think even elements) you would be able to do this. Have a look at http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Add-motion-blur.

without overdoing it, this technique is easier and less hit-and-miss than panning, as you can decide exactly whats blurred when you're back at home in the armchair. Which technique you use depends on what your morals are concerning postprocessing...

Thanks matt...
That would be great if you could put up a couple of shots to show the fl difference.

I didn't want to regurgitate this - I think its been in a few threads already - the quality is certainly superior to the 18-55

In terms of getting wide angle shots, I appreciate the comments about the sigma 10-20 and the pentax 16-45. I find the wide end of the 18-55 wide enough most the time, but I tend to get quite a bit of CA at 18mm. I know a few mm's make more of a difference at the wide end than the long end, but would some kind soul with both the 16-45 and the 18-55 be kind enough to mount their camera on a tripod and upload a shot at 16mm and at 18mm of the same scene? I'd be interested to see the difference 2mm FL makes. I'm very tempted by the 16-45

Most of the Dells I've had experience of seem to be quite 'plasticky' and flimsy. I know laptops aren't meant to be bulletproof, but I'm very impressed with the build quality and running of my Hp nx6110. Came from www.laptopsdirect.co.uk.

Is flash compensation what you're after? I don't know about the K10d (it must have it somewhere) but its in the main menu on my ist.

I'm afraid in the vast majority of cases this can't happen.

some physics -For the purposes of a polarising filter, light travels as a transverse wave. When these waves (from the sun) hit a surface the angle of particle oscillations that make up the wave changes, and changes differently for each surface/angle of surface. A polarising filter works by only letting through light waves in one plane of oscillation. i.e it'll make the scene darker, but have a different (sometimes undesirable) effect on each part of the scene.