Hi Teejay, welcome to the forum!

I can't help you out as I'm a bit of a beginner myself, but I'll jump on your band-waggon and ask the same question about the k-x.

I wonder what the police/home office view of Google Streetview and Google and Bing aeriel photography is.

If I were a terrorist, I'd find this sort of thing more handy and discrete that wandering about in full view of the plethora of CCTV cameras with a camera and tripod.

Edit: the link is to an aerial photo of a local airport - freely available on Google.

All us Jockanese togs should arrange to simultaneously descend upon the place with our families and cameras for a "happy day out" and see how far their policy goes.

This sort of thing does annoy me and whilst I have never been stopped or questioned, I dont think I would be submissive if I ever was . I'm pleased to hear that this chap made a stand and I sincerely hope that common sense prevails and Braehead Shopping Centre is suitably embarrassed by this sorry episode.

I know this can be done with a bit of post-processing, but Pentax offer the quicker simpler route of producing HDR images in-camera. I quite like the ease of use and have had some good results, but I feel there could be a technically more advantageous method of achiving the same result.

Here's one for ya!

I've used the HDR function in my K-x a few times now and got to wondering. Obviously, the camera takes 3 separate exposures, one at the correct exposure, one under-exposed and one over-exposed. It then combines these images using the in-camera software. All well and good, however ...

These exposures have a short time-lapse between them and when the subject has some elements with movement, eg a river, trees blowing in the wind, people etc, the time difference between the exposures shows up in the resulting HDR image.

Why not adapt the software to take one exposure, then produce the under and over exposed images electronically before combining them to produce an HDR image? This would deal with the time-lapse between exposures and result in fewer shutter actuations.

Am I missing something really obvious here? If not, I claim the idea as my own and demand a new 645 from Pentax in recompense.

You obviously haven't been to KFC recently

Wha-hey. Reeeeeeeesult!

Could this be the start of something?

Most of that technology already exists. I reckon the only barrier to common usage is the cost.

I had a bad experience with Max Spielman before. I asked them to do an A3 print of my bike and it turned out dreadful. The colours were all wrong and the print was out of focus (how the Hell they managed that was beyond me). My mate printed it for me and the result was perfect.

I should have taken both prints back to MS and demand my money back, but I had already torn it up in disgust.