No! I feel for you. I've not hand any accidents with any of my kit, but some close calls. At least they are replacing everything.

You may miss the body shape of the K10D though. I know I do since moving to a K-5 a few years ago.

USB provides 0.5A @ 5V maximum (2.5W). Pentax (K-5/3) battery needs 0.4A @ 8.4V to charge (3.36W).

So technically it is not possible to do it with these cells. With power from two USB ports it could be possible, but that somewhat defeats the object.

I think no.3 is my favourite. Deserves a place on a wall!

That tree is amazing!

My 2p.

Lenses are not like cars, they don't depreciate much while they are still current. They depreciate a bit as soon as they have been purchased but that is the same with anything. You can't sell something owned/used even if very little for the same as new.

Second hand lenses are not a bargain basement kind of thing. So long as the lens is cosmetically, mechanically and optically in good condition it will still sell years down the line at a relatively high price. I don't come on here looking for absolute bargains, just to save a little by going second hand compared to new.

Some lenses though will appreciate. FA*24, FA*600, A*200 Macro, A50 f/1.2, to name but a few.

Swapfile? Just turn it off and use loads of RAM! I've had no need for a swap file since going to 16GB RAM.

I know but for £55? The i5 or i7 I wanted would have been £180/250ish. They literally perform operations twice as fast as what I have but for the price I cannot complain. And for the difference in price I got myself a motherboard and RAM thrown in as well.

I'll definitely look to get something faster later down the line. But at the time it was all I could get.

Forgot to add, after SSD the second best thing I did was to get 16GB of RAM. The processor I have is not really that fast (AMD Athlon X4 860K Black Edition) but the high bus speed, and loads of high speed RAM makes a big difference.

Wow, love the 2nd and 3rd shots!

I fairly recently went from HDDs to all SSDs.

My old machine had a 64GB SSD (60GB usable) but an old model which was fast compared to a hard disk but slow compared to modern SSDs. I used it as a boot drive and stored Photoshop and Lightroom on it. Any photographs were stored on a RAID0 array with 2x100GB 2.5" 7200rpm HDDs. This was horribly slow to load even pre-rendered images.

I did a side-grade on my PC changing to a similar power processor but with a higher bus and therefore RAM speed and SATA-III connections on the motherboard. I then went from 60GBs of SSD space to 1.2TB. I now have no slow downs at all and loading times are very small.

I chose SSDs that have a performance profile designed for long sustained loads without slowing down. Some will rapidly deteriorate after just 10 minutes of usage and their I/O rate will drop to a fraction of the advertised rate. The IOPS on most drives will drop from 80-100kiops to about 7kiops (Samsung 850s included). The ones I chose remain at 20kiops even under long sustained loads. Similar thing happens to response times, going from 3ms to 20-60ms depending on the drive where as the ones I looked at remain below 14ms.

It may not seem like much but if you are working for 4 hours or longer on mand GB of photos then it will make a difference. If you only work about 1hr at a time on fewer files then you won't notice as big a difference between drives.

There is nothing special in terms of market segment or price of the drives I chose. They were the cheapest per GB that I'd ever seen an SSD, which is why I got 3 of them and a low end model to boot. But they are consistently well performing even though their peak numbers are lower than other drives. I'd definitely recommend the OCZ ARC-100 drives (not the Triton drives, they are sadly very slow and the same price per GB as the ARCs).

I've reduced their capacity to 400GB on each as they have 447GB usable space. Some of the 480GB that isn't usable is already set up for improving performance and longevity but I added 47GB on each drive to this 'over-provisioning' to extend the lifespan and improve performance further. 10% makes a difference but 25% is best for performance. I can't quite afford to give up 25% of each drive though as I need the space.