PDL, thanks for your response. I'm with you on points one and two, including the holding camera's less steady as I get older. With my non-SR K110D, my shake reduction has been letting it use as high of a shutter speed as possible.
I'm just starting to get used to using SR on my "new" K10D. And I have been using the focal length on the lens (I have no designed for ASP-C lenses) when plugging in the focal length number. But wanting to use the correct number I have been using the zoom I have on the camera kind of like a set of primes. If I set the SR to 35mm, I leave the zoom on that setting for a group of pictures.
To go more into the capital-letter-engendering part of question (3), I think part of what leads to confusion for me (if not others) is that when thinking about magnification in terms of "reproduction ratios" one of the terms in those ratios is based on frame size -- as when a subject 24mm tall in life, fills the height of the 36mm x 24mm film frame, then we have 1:1 reproduction. If we reduce the frame size, though the magnification of the lens is unchanged it looks much greater in the image produced. When you get *used to* thinking of making that adjustment, in lens choices for example, when you shoot with the ASP-C sensor size, you might think that adjustment applies in other cases.
But, I see what you're saying. If we are talking about the question of whether a group of pixels -- smaller in area than either frame size -- is going to look blurry because of unsteadiness of a certain length lens, then the frame size is actually irrelevant. The SR is not working on the scale of the frame size, but on a much finer scale. Am I getting this right?
PS -- no unicorns here, as far as I know, but my hound dog tells me that he is on an eternal quest to tree a Giant Deer-bunny.
.
.