Over at PF we use a system that looks for certain things in any new user's first post like URLs etc. Also all user's first posts are held in a queue. It's a lot of work but almost no spam makes it onto the system. I delete spam every day. The mod team is deliberately arranged to have 24/24 cover so that when some are sleeping others are active. Seems to work ok. We never delete stuff that's been asked before - that's not the purpose of it. Other zealous mods might merge stuff sometimes but that's the exception rather than the rule.

I don't know what I'm really 'supposed' to say in C&C so please forgive me if this is uncalled for. Just let me know and I will delete if you like.

If I came across this judging and was asked for an honest C&C, I'd start by commenting that there are those who might think it's not the most interesting photo ever made. Technically, it's sort of a bit in between. Ie although it's taken at 1/20 to blur movement I can't help but wondering if it might not have been more effective to make the exposure even longer, if that was the effect that you were looking for. The thing is it's close enough to frozen movement that rather than looking deliberately blurred in terms of a long exposure it just comes across as unfocused. Lastly the blue thing at the topleft, seems incongruous. I can't ident it =)

Nah it's not. Pentax is fine for 95%, which is enough for 95% of photographers

Bah, shame

@prsjnb You were "perturbed and puzzled by your (my) statement" rather than the original article that you've changed to talking about now.

Anyhow, we all agree that different systems have different strengths, such is life. And let's be realistic here, if you're starting out wildlife then any brand should be fine. But it's once you really get into it then the bigger range of eq in some brands will make a difference. I'm really not just making this up

@prsjnb, if you are serious about being perturbed or puzzled by this then really you should broaden your horizons. Every brand has strengths and weaknesses, it's a nobrainer. In ultramacro, Nikon do a cool UV flash and cool flat field enlarger lenses with an especially good reach into the UV spectrum. Canon do a cool macro zoom (aperture settable!) and a cool 2 flash unit. Sony have a cool electronic front curtain. These are indisputable hardware difference and have nothing to do with the photography that can be done using any one brand, which is as good with Pentax as anywhere else. But, like it or not, there's some stuff I can't do with Pentax. That's not slamming Pentax, it's just simply the way it is.

It isn't just the long end that Pentax is simply outgunned on for wildlife photography. In macro, Canon has a virtual monopoly of the best products with the MPE-65 and the twin flash. Nobody else touches these.

Bottom line, like it or not it's simply an undeniable fact that Canon definitely does do some things better. Full stop.

I got one the same way for £5 . It's a nice enough lens, not a focal length I use much though. They're very common because they used to be sold with Praktika cameras back in the day.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't - It's f stop dependent too if you have a -k, -m etc lens (I can't get much with it above f/5.6 in low light). Can't rely on it.

Cute, it's on the BBC via the red button, autumwatch