It's been done (by Frank) so thoroughly on the other site, it's debatable whether it's even worth bothering...

They're talking about f4 (as with the 16-45) vs f2.4 though, Smeggy. The guy who reviewed the DA-L 35 also said: I can well believe that given the suspicious similarities to the old f2 lens....

The new DA-L35 is apparently basically the same (optically) as the old FA35 f2, a very good lens, but not as sought after as the FA31mm.

Have a look here for an FA35 vs FA31 comparison: link

Looks like the K-7 at 800.... impressive!

The K5 is better. Only issue is whether it is $650 better! The K-7 is adequate at high ISO, I'd go up to 1250 without much concern. However the new breed of sensors are amaaaazing at high ISO....

If cost is an issue, and when isn't it an issue, you could go for the K-7 if weather resistant build and body controls + 100% viewfinder are most important to you, or K-r if high ISO is your main concern (it's also a faster shooter than the K-7 and has the upgraded AF).

Or wait and get a K-5

Sh*t, I'd better cancel that bank transfer I just made to pay for her flight to the UK. Why am I always so unlucky in love?!

I must say i do prefer to see a dog relaxed, and off the leash. But the background is good, and the DOF is nice. I like Stefan't edit although now the tension in the collar is unexplained!

I don't think we should be snooty about Auto-ISO. ISO doesn't bring anything to the party, unlike aperture and shutter speed. ISO just facilitates.

Auto ISO gives a lower threshold to your shutter speeds, at which point the camera will begin to raise ISO rather than go for long exposures. This is usually convenient when shooting hand held, when you don't really want to dive into the menu (or even spin the front wheel) to get the shot. And these days there is much less image degradation at higher ISO to worry about.

Great shots Jon. Lovely reflections around the gherkin.

That's pretty extraordinary, is it cropped very much?