I wouldn't trust PCWorld/Dixons/Currys as far as I could throw them

I suspect that if the OP had a backup of his files he wouldn't be asking us how to get them off the original hard drive

The external hard drives one buys are no different than the drive enclosure linked above: an IDE (or occasionally SATA these days) hard drive enclosure, with a USB output. The only difference is that the drive is already in the enclosure and the enclosure isn't designed to be opened.

PC World staff aren't techies: they are known to (with a straight face) recommend Norton Internet Security as a protection against computer problems rather than the cause of more

Picasa 3 is good, as is Paint.net (Gimp is horrible)

That should work. Virtually all laptops use a 2.5" hard drive - even most netbooks (desktops use 3.5" because it's cheaper for a given capacity)

Argos's £3300 AF360 flash still beats it though

One of the captions interested me: "Experts say Adams' negatives are almost worthless since most of his creativity was down to how he produced photos in the darkroom"

This, IMHO, is the ultimate retort to the likes of Ken Rockwell who claim that post processing isn't "real" photography and everyone should use out-of-camera JPEGs.

Unintended dupe of this thread - post there!

Anything f2 or better (f1.8, f1.4, f0.95) is normally considered 'fast' in absolute terms. However for zooms, f2.8 is sometimes described as 'fast' in relative terms (i.e. a 70-200mm f2.8 could be described as 'fast' because the alternative is a 50-200mm f4-5.6).

It's also relative to focal length. An f2.8 prime isn't very fast if it's 35mm (e.g. the Pentax DA35) but at 400mm, f2.8 is extremely fast and extremely expensive (Nikon charge £6518 for their 400mm f2.8 prime).

Apologies for quoting the Daily Fail on a proper photography forum, but on a story relating to alleged Ansel Adams negatives (bloke who owns them in a dispute with the family as to whether they're genuine), they suggested that "Experts say Adams' negatives are almost worthless since most of his creativity was down to how he produced photos in the darkroom"

So is this the ultimate retort to the likes of Ken Rockwell, who say that digital post processing is a waste of time and we should all just use the JPEG that comes out of the camera? Perhaps the greatest master of landscape photography produced a great deal of the 'magic' of his images through... post processing?

I once saw a photo processing place (which will remain nameless despite the staff being cretinously unhelpful) take their 'official' passport photos by sitting the 'customer'against a white projection screen (of the kind one would use for OHP in a classroom, only 1/4 sized) and taking the snap with a small compact. If they can get away with that I should think a K10D shot by someone who knows what they're doing should be fine - just be careful about getting a white background as that matters.

One thing to bear in mind is that the NX10 is not a conventional EVIL: it has an updated version of the K20D's APS-C sensor.

I suppose Klaus just didn't want to have a new lens review section with only one or two reviews in it. That could be wrong though!