As above. I have a Centon MR20 ringflash, which I believe is the same unit under another label, and it works fine with my old MF Sigma 50mm macro. I find this focal length is a little short for extreme macro and you end up virtually touching the subject, although it's manageable. I expect PJ has gone for something in 100mm range, and that would be a lot better. These cheap second-hand ringflashes are a great starting point and are capable enough for most projects.

I still use an earlier version of PhotoPlus because I wasn't persuaded X7 offered any extra capabilities I would find of use. However, for £29, it's a no-brainer, IMHO. This sort of discount means X8 is just around the corner. I'd be surprised if X7 failed to meet any of your processing requirements. The estimable Mr Barnes uses X7 and I'm sure he'll pop in to give you his take on it.

Thanks for the links, MM. I've run into problems before in scanning textured prints and those resources look useful. I often resort to photographing troublesome prints and find this produces better results than a scan, although it's far less convenient.

Al

A chap at PC World (how much more expert can you get?) said Epson had a new range of printers that use refillable ink tanks, slashing the cost of ink. The trouble is, he said, they are basically £50 printers priced at £200. Seems they'll get you one way or another.

I've used Epson Stylus Photo A4 printers for years and the quality of the prints is spectacularly good. The latest model in the series is the P50, I believe, and customer reviews indicate it's as good as its predecessors. The ink's expensive (£50 or so for six cartridges). I use Epson ink but compatibles are available, and reportedly very good, for about a third of the price.

If you're looking for an A3 printer, the ink costs can be staggering and I'd suggest using an outside firm to print them off at a fraction of the price.

I'm sure many of the products from other manufacturers are as good as the Epsons, but I can't see how they would be any better.

Oddly, the Stylus Photo printers do a better job of, well, photos - and desktop-publishing projects - than word-processed text. It's good enough for letters but exhibits some jagginess under a magnifying glass (that's a primitive tool for pixel-peeping, if younger members are mystified).

Good luck with your search.

Al

This is all quite interesting (although admittedly trivial, Steve). The Exif standard for contrast values seems to be 1 for low contrast, 2 for high contrast and 0 for normal contrast. I've run a test with my K30 and this is how Serif PhotoPlus reports it. But Infanview and PhotoMe opt for "hard", "soft" and "normal", which seems to be Pentax's way of describing it. The different approaches have bugger all to do with taking photographs but give us some food for thought.

For what it's worth, the Exif information reported by Serif PhotoPlus 4 (an oldish version) gives both the contrast and sharpening values of this image as 2.

I've used Serif products for years (they also sell excellent DTP software) and find PhotoPlus has all the capabilities most photographers want or need. Photoshop and Elements now sit on my computer unused. Lightroom seems to be popular with folk on this site and I've no doubt it's excellent, with far better cataloguing facilities. But I've yet to see any photo editing techniques that can't be achieved with Serif's product. It's very close to Photoshop in design. Once you've bought PhotoPlus, you're given a substantial discount on subsequent versions. The K-3 isn't mentioned in Serif's raw-compatibility list but all the other Pentaxes and Samsung equivalents are. It would work a treat with the excellent GX-20 still available in the classified section.

I love my GX20 (K20D in another guise) and the results it produces but I'm just not using it, hence the sale. I'm in the middle of moving house and, typically, the box, manual and Samsung 18-55 kit lens are in storage and won't be accessible for three months or so, when I'll be happy to send them to any buyer. By way of compensation, I'll throw in now a mint 18-55 WR lens (also unboxed for the same reason). The GX20 has 3,818 clicks and the 18-55 is virtually unused. If anyone's interested, I'll post some pix. Camera and lens are both immaculate and working perfectly. £170 for the pair including delivery. Strap, battery charger and two batteries, one third-party, are included

I've sadly neglected my DSLRs since buying an MX-1. It's output is extraordinarily good, given the sensor size. I took some shots during the last night at my pub before it closed for good (sign of the times) and a photographer from a daily newspaper with full professional Nikon kit and powerful flash was also there to record the historic event.

I made A4 prints from my file and from his. There was no discernable different in IQ -- and i'd used the MX-l's built-in flash. I had to make a levels adjustment to subjects farthest from the camera but, at the end of the day, you couldn't tell which camera had been responsible for which print. Nuff said. Get one while you still can. As others have said, the MX-1 is a bit bulky and eccentricly designed, but you'll learn to love it.

Al