Shep,
Stating that you are happy with them seems to render other opinions somewhat pointless, but anyway here goes -

#1 would have been better with the feet in the frame, and similarly #3 with the ends of the sleeves.

For me all three have rather too much background - they look better when cropped at 10/8 ratio (but not too closely) with the little chap off-centre to the right in #1 and #3 and to the left in #2.

It works for me in Opera browser, but I've just tried Internet Explorer and it doesn't, so your suspicion was right. If you don't want to install a different browser, right-click on the picture and save it. You can open the detailed properties when you right-click on the saved image file's name or icon.

Right-click on the images above and click properties.

The majority of photos of the K-01 on the Web show body only or body with the new pancake lens - this makes it look like a silly toy, especially the yellow version. When the black or black+silver body is fitted with a normal lens (e.g. the usual kit zoom 18-55), it looks more like a real camera.

Scroll down http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k01/pentax-k01A.HTM to see examples.

If your preferred dealer's price becomes less favorable when you are ready to buy, you could try asking if they would be willing to match the cheapest price at that time.

Vic, I have had the K-5 for only a few months, and its quality seems so impressive that I can see well-treated ones easily lasting the lifetime of even the younger members here! On reflection, although my original point was about continued battery availability, I suppose that compatibility with the computer hardware and software of future decades might be more of a problem, when the current generation of digital cameras become collectors' and enthusiasts' classics.

My Contax 137MD 35mm SLR (with integrated 2fps motor-drive) still works perfectly after over 30 years, and is usable because it runs on any type of AA batteries. Just wondering if my Pentax K-5 (or almost any other current DSLR) will still be usable over 30 years from now, relying as it does on a proprietary lithium battery, and why Pentax did not include the K-r's excellent AA adapter in its design.

Some people keep their money under their own mattress.

So can someone enlighten me (excuse the pun), if I am not changing the white balance when I apply a White Balance Adjustment in software to an out-of-camera Jpeg file, what am I changing?

There is no argument against the technical point that Raw images contain more data than Jpegs, and therefore there need be no argument with those who wish to process their images from that Raw data, if that is what they wish to do.. However, it seems to me that there is ample visible evidence available to show that those who wish to shoot and process Jpegs are not a species of sub-human lesser-photographers.

The examples usually shown or quoted to push everyone into Raw-shooting often seem to concentrate on the extremes - wrong white balance, very high contrast scenes, etc. - and there is no doubt that such images can sometimes be rescued only from a Raw file. However, developments in camera technology, when matched by our endeavour to utilise the camera properly, are helpng to account for these extremes, e.g. the wide dynamic range of the K-5, and its in-camera HDR capability.

Such cameras have also evolved to offer hundreds of settings for the photographer to play with creatively, in order to produce amazing out-of-camera Jpeg images. Nevertheless, if those images are still not technically or visually correct, there is a huge amount of data still available in a modern camera’s large fine Jpeg files, for tweaking in Photoshop (or similar) without noticeable loss of quality. So it would appear that the data “discarded” during Jpeg compression was not of the nature that is vital to human eyes and visual perception when a typical image is being viewed normally.

Anyone with a dslr that can shoot a simultaneous Raw+Jpeg image can try an experiment to see for themselves. Assuming that you have not made extreme errors with the shot, process both the Raw and the Jpeg to give the same acceptable appearance, and print each one at A4, or even A3 if you can. (Obviously, you should not repeatedly open, save and close a Jpeg file during its processing.) Can you tell which print started from Raw and which was from Jpeg - and perhaps more importantly, do you think that a viewer not involved in the processing (e.g. even a competition judge) would know which was which?

In the real world that most of us inhabit, the differences between processed Raw images and Photoshop-tweaked out-of-camera Jpegs, from our incredible Pentax dslr cameras, are usually not visible at reasonable viewing sizes and distances. For most of us, for whom photography is an absorbing hobby, our photos will probably rarely exceed A3, or 16x12 inches. We are unlikely to project our photos to cover the wall of the Airbus A380 hangar, nor do we usually show close-ups of pixels under a microscope to our families and friends.

So, it is my opinion that whether to shoot Raw or Jpeg has become more a matter of real choice rather than one for argument. And if you can't decide which to choose before shooting, opt for the insurance policy - Raw+Jpeg.