Brilliant move economically. Not only does this bring in a regular income from inventory but it feeds LBA. I would thank SRS for this service but I think instead they will be thanking us!

On Bracketing.
What suits each person will differ. I am quite happy shooting single shots and sometimes "manually bracketing" by taking a second safety shot with EV-1 or even -2. The number of times I feel I need to do this is way less than my total number of shots.

On RAW vs. JPG
I shoot only RAW since image management takes me enough time without worrying about duplicate JPGs. But don't forget the amazing Pentax feature of being able to develop your own shots in-camera. I did this just last week to get some results ready for sharing. I made a quick selection of my few best shots and cooked them as I wished. Then I handed over the memory card and said "just grab the JPGs" (since most people couldn't do anything with the RAWs anyway).

In this way I was able to present only my best shots and do some important processing (eg. B&W conversion) before anyone else saw them.

All this indicates to me is that you haven't seen any good videos/films.

Tonight watched I Am Cuba, every frame of which is a fantastic still and the sum total being much greater than the parts.

I don't think any medium is "better" than any other. Pitting them in this way seems futile.

Exactly. I would have thought it obvious that one only gets incremental improvements for spending more on lenses. The fact that these improvements do not justify the cost for some should in no way be extrapolated by those people to the fact that the improvements are not important to others.

We all have different requirements and if yours are met sufficiently by the kit lens, go out and have fun with it. But that is not the point of this thread, as should also be darned obvious from the OP.

The DA16-45 is distinctly better than the kit in at least four objective ways:
1. It is 2mm wider, which is significant in that range.
2. It is a constant f/4 aperture and usable wide open.
3. It is sharper edge to edge which matters if you are photographing flat field objects (architecture mainly).
4. It has less distortion of the field.

Now, whether any of this matters to a particular photographer is a matter of personal priorities.

Specifically there were two models, the SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.2, known as the "K" series and the SMC Pentax A 50mm f/1.2. There is also a Cosina 55/1.2 for K mount.

Yes, though cine lenses are usually specified in t-stops rather than f-stops.

Yes, one should write 1:2.0 or 1/2.0 or simply f/2.0. The slash shows that the f-stop number is actually the denominator of a fraction. Thus, the smaller the number the larger the aperture. Which is why the 50mm f/1.2 is the largest aperture available from Pentax.

Ditto. The DA16-45 has better IQ than the DA17-70 (though the differences are slight) and is wider as well. However, I will say that if you already have the kit you might look to extend your photographic possibilities instead of duplicating something you already have. There are two good ways to do this.

1. Get a fast 50 and forget about zooming for a while. Plus the large aperture will give you a new look at the world. An A 50/1.7 was going for 40 quid on these very forums. Bargain of a lifetime.

2. Get the DA12-24 for a wide to normal perspective. SRS has them second hand. Since getting this I never use a "standard" zoom.

Before you asked why ANYONE (your caps) would want video on a DSLR. Now you are saying that you personally would find no use for it. Different things entirely.

Just to clarify (for anyone else reading), I was not talking about DOF preview, but rather the ability to control DOF with large aperture lenses, an ability common to SLRs but costing a fortune on video cams.

I figure: if I can have video as a bonus on my still camera, then why not? There is no evidence that the K-x and K-7 cost more for this feature. And if it's there I might even fool around with it. Plus it saves me money on buying a videocam.

Just off the top of my head:
* DOF control
* fleet of lenses for next to no money (ever priced interchangeable lens video cameras?)
* convenience of switching from still to video with no extra gear
* journalists welcome ability to grab some motion in the field without calling out a video crew

There's nothing in the 35-70 gap one can't get from changing one's perspective on a scene. The only reason I have a lens in this range is that it is a special piece of magic called a 43 Limited!

Otherwise I am happy with the DA12-24 and the 77 Limited. Considering I am not a tele guy, there is very little I cannot capture with those two lenses.