Maybe they mistook the AF assist light for some sort of laser (sometimes the AF assist light comes on if you forget to take your lens cap off, not that I would EVER make such a schoolboy error of course!)

We can't really tell whether the situation ended badly because of the officer's heavy handedness, or extreme truculence on the photographer's part. Or a bit of both?

To me, they should have taken him to one side and asked him about his equipment / had a look at it, to satisfy any concerns they might have had. If this was done, and if the photographer had respectfully complied without making a big meal out of it, the situation would have been avoided. On the other hand, if they treated him aggressively from the start, his complaint is totally justified.

Sometimes what looks in focus through the stock OVF screen, isn't quite in focus, when you are using certain lenses with narrow dof. Peaking ought to help a lot.

Or, are failing to recruit.

You are right, I don't think anyone would oppose security being taken seriously at the games. Which is precisely why most people are apalled by the G4S debacle!

And I don't think 'taking security seriously' means curtailing non-official photography, or preventing local shops from displaying sausages arranged into the olympic rings.

As far as surface to air missiles on nearby rooftops goes.... I honestly don't see what that's supposed to acheive other than create an unduly paranoid atmosphere. I mean, if they strike down an incoming missile, it's going to hit a heavily populated area whatever, right? Maybe they're hoping to deflect an incoming strike towards some of the more deprived East London communities, and clear an area for redevelopment while reducing the welfare bill in one fell blow?

It is a very good review. It's useful in that it comes from a long-time Pentax user, as well as a Nikon user - so he is used to the way Pentaxes are set up (other reviewers miss a lot of stuff because they are so used to Canikon) but he is also a user of high-end Nikon's so can bring that experience to bear.

Interesting comments re the AF, although you really need to try the camera yourself IMHO... I think the 'generalised comments' about the AF in real-life use are probably more telling than attempting to perform controlled AF tests which aren't actually that true to life.

The dynamic range / underexposed image recovery test was very useful, with full sized images showing there's no meaningful step down from the K5 in this regard, despite using 12bit RAW.

K30 -5 EV recovered
K5 -5 EV recovered

I think they're probably right to slip over into superlatives, when you consider this is intended more as a Kr replacement than a K5 replacement.

Two hundred and fifty odd... The going rate I think. Quite a gulf in price compared to the 1.4...

A 50mm f1.2 came up recently, and I wish I hadn't bottled it and passed it by. Is the 50/1.2 noticeably more bokelicious than the 1.4 to make it worth paying the extra?

You cannot get an f1.4 zoom. There's justification for a prime lens right there. If you want to shoot in the f1.2-f2.5 range, you have no choice! Even at f2.8, a prime will normally be cheaper and more portable than a zoom.

Simon, you'll find a DA70mm would compress perspective in the same way - it's a focal length thing, not a zoom vs prime thing. I do actually wonder if you'd be happier with a longer prime, as I think those longer, faster ones do offer more of a benefit over a zoom, in terms of nice OOF rendering etc.

Brilliant image. Could hardly have worked out better!

I wouldn't start worrying about back focus, they look fine, especially if you click for the full size versions.