Ah yes, more recently branded Lenovo. I must have a long memory. Doesn't change the fact that these will run rings around cheap stuff from other makes. They are simply more stable. My X220 rips through complex audio production work and photo editing. Cost me £190.

Check out Feisol.

Just get a used IBM Thinkpad X series and throw an SSD into it. They are about the only company still making laptops that are built to last.

Exactly.

Who the heck uses auto-focus anyway? Especially in a studio setting where all variables are controlled. If you can't get a good shot with Pentax you can't get one at all.

Then again, why would any pro studio photographer use Pentax when Nikon exists? Different planet really, for anyone who can afford the air. Does anyone whose living depend on it deliberately choose third best?

Well, George, your personal antipathy towards me is derailing yet another thread. As always I will bow out after a single response, since I do not believe such childish behaviour should be rewarded.

Of course if you actually read my websites, you would see that I don't sell ads and don't engage in sponsorship schemes of any kind. Unlike this site and many others. So your accusation is unfounded. And contradictory.

I only post messages on public sites relevant to my interests. And only respond when I have something of value to offer. The contrast between us couldn't be greater, could it?

No doubt my interests are significantly broader than your own constrained world view. So you might be surprised to see me contribute to discussions of aesthetics, philosophy, film, literature, photography, programming, radio, sound art, composition, and so on. To view all this as merely self-promotion really does betray your limited outlook.

The sort of passive-aggressive behaviour you demonstrate here says a lot more about your own motivations than it does about mine. If you would engage in any sort of self-reflexive behaviour you might consider the wisdom in such playground taunts. (I really think some Aristotle would do you the world of good.)

I imagine the site administrators know how to do their job. Your lack of faith in them is typical. After all, only you know best, right George?

Your fear of knowledge is not shared by everyone here. If I link to information it's only because there are sources worth sharing. The very basis of the internet is communication, and the fundamental mechanism of the web is the link. Strange of you to have overlooked these obvious facts for so long.

The original question was: "is it possible for the performance of a high quality lens to be scuppered by the camera attached?" This seems to be a general question and the answer to that is "yes". Even if restricted to Pentax gear, once must consider everything from tiny sensors to 645D equipment.

The answer in a more general case is difficult to determine, even if one is an expert on modulation transform functions, Airy disks and the Rayleigh criterion.

Two of the best sources of information are this Canon forum thread and the Luminous Landscape article.

I have never trusted to fate and hence always back up my shots... especially when travelling. This can be done at any given computer so long as you carry an SD card reader.

Likewise I change cards in safe places. With something as enormous as 8GB, never mind 16GB, there is no reason to wait until every last bit is filled before swapping. You should never be forced to do so in unsafe and unlikely places.

Yes.

Bernard gets a +1

Even for video 16GB is plenty. There is something to be said for 8GB, so you don't have all your eggs in one basket.

I do have 32Gb cards for my GH1 bodies, but then again they can record for three hours continuously at high bit rates. Admittedly that's not a use case that applies to Pentax.