I am looking to get a couple of K10Ds and the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 within the next few months (hopefully before September, depends how long Pentax takes to release the lenses).

Regarding the battery grip, it is my understanding that the battery grip comes with no battery, would this be correct?

I was considering buying the K10D with the 18-55 or 16-45 and 50-200 sooner and getting the DA* lenses later, but then those lenses may never be used again. I already have an old SMC-A 24-50, 50 and a horrible 75-300 (Super A got damaged and needs repairing), although manual focus without a split screen is difficult and probably inaccurate. The K10D body's autofocus sensor still works with manual lenses giving an indication so it may be usable in the short term.

So, should I get the body now and use my old lenses and save my money for the DA* and a wide angle. The other option is to get the K10D and both 'kit' lenses now and then possibly never use them again... (I know perfectly well I'll favour the sealed DA*s because I mostly shoot outdoors)

Difficult decisions to be made, am leaning towards saving for the DA*s.

Gimp's colour support is pretty poor for a lot of work. Either way, I use Lightroom and Photoshop so it is either OSX or XP for me. I did have a go with UFRAW and GIMP but didn't get along too well with them.

Solaris is UNIX based, just like Linux, and to some extent OSX. That kind of support would be wonderful as I'd be a step closer to ditching Windows.

I want a Pentax massage!

I won't be touching Vista, way too slow, nothing new except fancy effects... Would rather they brought out application and PEF support for Linux.

You do have the 18-55mm 'kit' lens, right? Remember the 1.5x focal length multiplication, so the 50mm is actually ~75mm

Ansmann produce some very high quality batteries and chargers but come at a relatively high price. They have a charger (DIGISPEED 4 Ultra) that will charge 2400mAh batteries in 30 mins and batteries that will keep 90% charge for a year. Uniross batteries I commonly use discharge themselves in a week if left alone so they need to be charged and used immediately.

I'd probably choose something like that as it allows you to realize you have no batteries charged the same morning you want to go out and shoot and stil get a full day of taking pictures.

18-55mm review:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_1855_3556/index.htm

50mm review
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_50_14/index.htm

50-200mm review:
http://www.photodo.com/topic_58.html

I was quite surprised as it performed just as well as the Sigma 18-55. I am always impressed by how constant the resolution on Olympus optics tends to be. Either way, the test results are there to see so you can make your own mind up.

Still, my point is that saying the death of photography as we know it is on its way is rather silly. There will still be millions of people taking photos and not bothering with video, me among them.

What a load of rubbish... Do people still not paint portraits? Carve furniture by hand? Cook on open fires? All because they choose to do so? Is chemical film not higher resolution than CCD/CMOS?

Most prints are 3:2 ratio, all professional cameras shoot 3:2 by default, this is quite close the the 16:10 and 16:9 of 'widescreen'. 1.6:1 is best as it is closest to the golden ratio if you really want to push for anything.

I see no reason why video will take over, no reason for still manufacturers to disappear...

Video can be so bland and even with even increasing bandwidth the resolution required to match is not going to be possible.

Lastly, with a good digital darkroom you can do batch processing or quit processing of a whole day's shoot in less time than developing the same film. Spending hours in front of a screen or darkroom isn't needed, we have more time to go out and shoot.

I shoot so minimal adjustment is needed, what I see is what I want. I may desaturate, convert to grayscale, change colours, etc. but major Photoshop work is reserved for Web and Design work, not 'photography'.

"These cameras, off the shelf, are capable of delivering a 2-megapixel still image. The Dallas Morning News is now equipping their still photographers with Sony Z1U video cameras, and they have created an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels, which only two years ago was the maximum you could get out of a professional 35mm camera"

16MP from 1920x1080 in three colour channels? How are you going to get a good quality 16MP image from a 2MP image? That makes no sense at all unless you stitch multiple images. Bayer interpolation works because you can simulate a lot of pixels by taking photo detector information more than once (up to 4 times). This can't really work even using Sigma's algorithm for 14MP shots from 3x4.7MP.

16MP for 35mm film? Not with good processing, you need about 24MP to match well processed 35mm film, this is a 12.5% resolution increase so may not be that significant when looked at that way, but is is a huge increase in CCD/CMOS size.

I could go on but there is not need...

EDIT: But I do feel compelled to...

RAW digital video can give good stills from a frame, but the amount of data is impossible to handle and distribute. In camera processing matched details from several frames and track's their change rather than recording a slideshow. This means that stills, while possible to extract will look very off indeed.

Secondly, the sharpness and detail will be reduced because the subjects are moving, each frame is 1/25s or 1/30s so prone to motion blur, they are not sharp.

Video and photo are different neither will get replaced or die out.

Was going to say more but I've forgotten, check back later...

I remember...

HDR photography? There are limits to what you can print and some of this seems a little pointless. I admit it can give better colour transitions over a whole image, but you can shoot it right too...

Take photos and relax! (May need to take my own advice there...)