I had the K50 attached to a Sigma 150-500mm zoom which is quite a heavy beast, when some clumsy idiot accidentally knocked them from a shelf to the (timber) floor. Luckily no damage was done and it all worked perfectly, there is just the tiniest scuff mark on the camera body where it took the impact. So in answer to your question, it is a robust camera with its polycarbonate shell on a stainless steel chassis.

I am mightily impressed by the enthusiastic responses from those lucky enough to own this lens so in the light of this I took a somewhat cynical view of an article in this month's Digital Camera (yeah I know, but I wanted something to read on the train), being a comparison of 8 FF-compatible super-telephotos incl. the Pentax 150-450mm. "performance mostly impressive.....autofocus speed is sluggish compared with other lenses in the group, and sharpness could be better." Depends what bodies they were tested on of course and the Pentax was possibly even tested on a 35mm as this was referred to in the final summary. Also, the Pentax uses a DC motor whereas all the others have an ultrasonic ring - does that make a difference? All the others have image stabilization but there was no mention that Pentax bodies have this built-in.

Seeing as this lens is designed specifically for the FF body it will be interesting to see how it performs when that's out.

At 14 it's a great start, she could always start with everything in auto mode which is no different to a point-and-shoot and develop skills with the semi-automatic. As a young lad I had to learn to use a light meter and apply everything manually but it did seem simpler then.

I picked a K50 after handling it in London Camera Exchange, Leamington Spa; I wanted a white one and they were supposed to call me with a delivery date but as they didn't I ordered one from Clifton Cameras. Love it. Tried a 18-135mm lens the other day...mmm, sexy, but can't really justify it unless in a camera package which would be my choice next time. Worth a call to them to see what they have in the shop.

I seem to recall that the issue with these third party suppliers is the cost of accommodating the K-mount as it incorporates a mechanical connection for historic lenses as well as the electronic connections; in that sense maybe Pentax is unique in 35mm film era lenses being fully useable with DSLRs. Other manufacturers went fully electronic some time ago but I think that Pentax regard that facility as worthwhile as it helps retain their client base who have remained with the brand since those days. It also means there are far more lenses available and at attractive prices. I wonder whether Canon/Nikon see the availability of third party lenses as a benefit to their brand or as competition for their own lenses? However it's good for the consumer to have some competition. A solution might be if an electronics-only version of the k-mount could be developed for the lenses with a simple interface made for fitting to the camera body.

I think we need to lighten up about berating Ricoh/Pentax over release dates. True the company PR could be improved but judging by the latest lenses and bodies we are seeing great quality products at accessible prices, and this is becoming recognized in the wider press. in a recent AP issue a reader asked for recommended kit to take landscapes with a £1150 budget. The response was that the stand-out best option is the Pentax K-3II with the 50-135 lens, highlighting its WR and other unique features. I was told recently by an experienced retailer that Pentax is aiming to be no. 3 in the camera market and this of course takes time, and it won't happen if problems develop from rushing to meet target dates at the expense of rigorous testing and quality control. We know the FF is coming sometime soon along with more lenses to suit, so a few weeks wait for a new lens isn't the end of the world. Just as long it's here for my birthday!

The short as is that it won't. By definition a true macro lens gives a 1:1 ratio, like your Pentax 100mm macro. Other zoom lenses with a 'macro' setting generally don't and although you can get close-up it's not as close. I have the 100mm macro as well, and if you want macro then that or similar macro primes are best. I also have an 18-80 zoom with 'macro' but that doesn't come close (literally and image quality) and because of it's weight stays on the shelf. If you don't want to lose the macro quality the alternative might be a shorter focus macro lens, say 35 or 50mm. If you still want the zoom capability you might look at the new Pentax DA 18-50mm which is very compact; that means you would still have two lenses but would be less bulky than your present set-up.

Having said that if your 100mm macro doesn't get used much then you probably wouldn't want to splash out on another specialist lens.

I am going to disagree with you here. Whilst I accept some editing of a RAW file in software is necessary in my view it is better if kept to a minimum; far better to compose the image as close to what you want it to be on exposure rather than just blast away thinking I'll fix it later! After all any time saved in the field is more time spent tinkering on the computer so no real benefit, and this is even more so when combining exposures in HDR, focus stacking or whatever.

It also just occurred to me that the editing could be done by someone else with more expertise perhaps so that wouldn't be valid for a competition.

For tripod mounting click the INFO button twice to get display options and pick electronic level. Otherwise handhold and use the levels display in the viewfinder. I haven't noticed any problems with horizon correction so tend to leave it activated. To take a sequence of panned shots for panorama stitching I use a video tripod mount and a little bubble level in the hotshoe to adjust the tripod.

No 5 - yes it's an orrery - my brother built one out of meccano!
Spooky no. 12 - so that's where it all went! We had everything except the wallpaper.
Great pics, I must make a visit.