Do you mind if I reverse engineer one of the shots Greg, to make it fit more with my notion of 'what looks natural'?

Since you ask sooo nicely

Seagull SYK-5 type optical slave

Cheap wireless radio triggers

A normal optical slave will be triggered by the PTTL pre-flash. However you can buy optical slave units that can be set to ignore the pre-flash by adjusting a setting on the side of the unit.

It's actually not that much more expensive to buy chinese knock-off radio triggers, eliminating the whole issue - unless you absolutely need a PTTL flash on the camera as well.

So I heard. Thank god they managed to rebuild that entire street in the end though.

I dunno... the Tokina 16-28mm is actually cheaper than the Pentax 12-24mm. But I would really like to shoot with a nice small 24mm prime, delivering its full AOV on full frame. Someday I'll probably get a battered old 5D and have the mirror shaved so it can take K-mount lenses.

That makes sense Algi. A Sony FF has some sort of appeal as a cheaper alternative to Canikon, but their APSC DSLRs don't really have much appeal and are eclipsed by their own NEX range.

Yes - the reason the K50 shot works is her pose and the good background, as well as the lens rendering - which is lovely. Not the f1.2 setting. In fact I suspect it was shot at more like f1.8 to f2?

In terms of the 'pop', I mean when the background is pushed back by a selective narrow dof on the subject. I would agree that if you go for this look, the effect undone if there's a lot of glow / coma and lens aberrations.

On film I seem to remember being actively concerned about making sure the background was in focus, rather than straining to isolate the subject all the time. Partly because effects which are easily achieved have less appeal, and partly because (for me) the lack of instant feedback and the cost of film/processing discouraged experimentation.

Another thing I've noticed with the K10 is that LR3 gives the sensor a new lease of life - my old K200d, with the same sensor, used to struggle at higher ISO or when lifting shadows in Photoshop - coloured mottling that looked horrible. LR3 seems to avoid or at least reduce that.

There's something satisying about getting that subject 'pop' against the background straight out of camera, and it's quite an involved process to get it to look perfect in photoshop - with some subjects at least.

I am open to the notion that the fast lens / big sensor 'shallow dof on wide angle' look appeals - perhaps subconsciously - to me and some other photographers because we recognise it signifies expensive kit - either a FF body or a ridiculously fast lens. Or because it's an effect we struggle to recreate with our own kit. Or that we remember from film days, and miss on APSC.

This nostalgia is a bit ironic for me, as I distinctly remember avoiding wide open apertures when I shot film. When that look was freely available, it didn't have such appeal!

Back to the lens question, I tried the 40mm Ltd alongside the 50mm 1.7. Ultimately I kept the 50mm as I couldn't determine any particular advantage to the 40mm other than AF and size. But I am open to the idea that I am just a lens Philistine.

BTW Robin, of the two shots of Schweppes, I prefer your K50 shot.

Makes sense to me too!