the DA* 16-50 2.8* is lighter than the FA* 28-70 2.8 (and a wider focal range, being equivalent to 24-75)

The DA 18-55 is a LOT smaller and lighter than the FA 28-80 (and a fair bit smaller than the FAJ 28-90)

Primes are a problem - wide primes have to be retrofocus because of the mirror box. To make a retrofocus design requires more elements. If it is going to be fast they have to be big. So it is hard (possibly impossile) to make a small, fast retrofocus lens. Pentax have sacrificed speed for size. Pitty they could not have got the 21mm down to the magic f2.8 though..

Personally I don't see much of a future in these 'limited' lenses, especialy if the 'enthusiast' market goes for the K10D. Then again shove some of the extra software and the 10MP chip into the K100D (and maybe the front wheel) and you have a very desirable small lightweight camera screaming out for those limited lenses...

Actually for sharpness most regard the 1:1.2 as slightly less sharp than the other offerings (including the 2.0). However it would make a fab portrait lens on the K10D - think of that narrow depth of field and the slightly softer look and equivalent fov of a 75mm lens (35mm equivalent).

[The DA 35 seems to be a 2.8 macro model now if you look] (correction - just noticed that there is also a 35 SDM lens on the Road Map)

But I noticed that the FA 35 F2.0, which has a superb reputation, is once again available, both from SRS and Park Cameras for £279. And I've only recently picked up a secondhand F 28 2.8 to use as a standard... (boxed virtually mint from Ffordes for £79) Oh the temptation to get out the Credit Card again...

Perfectly normal - my AF360FGZ is also quite noisy - it has a lttle motor the physically moves the flash element in relation to the lens at the front of the flashgun.

£45 is a silly price for a small LI battery. The much bigger ones in computers cost about £80-100. This is a variation on the razorblade marketing model. Cut the price of the main item to the bone and then make money on the accesories. E.g flimsy plastic camera cases for £25, or a battery grip which is not much more than a lump of plastic with a few dials and swithces for £180, or a cable release which is switch on a piece of wire for £25.

Or even a flashgun that costs almost as much as a basic studio lighting kit (I'll live without swivel on 360fgz for the time being)

They are more expensive to up Pentax profit margins, not because they are that much better. I'm happy for Pentax to make a profit, and if the Pentax batteries had been £20 I would have probably bought one rather then the one I got for 7.99 from 7dayshop. But I refuse to pay £45. That is rather more than a 1/2p of tar!!!

There are image stabilisation systems 'out there' that have the option of single dimension stabiliation - but that option is not present on the Pentax clearly. I wonder if they could add it as a firmaware update?

BTW the pentax SR is described as three dimensional - which I guess means horizontal, vertical and rotational. The latter is clever (and not available in lens based system C***n and N***n please note) but is not realy a third dimension.

Just noticed this on ebay....

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-400mm-5-6-APO-for-Pentax-PKA-Mount_W0QQitemZ220077652173QQihZ012QQcategoryZ4688QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD3VQQcmdZViewItem

Try Speed Graphic

http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/prod.asp?i=11132&usrID=2FB4082E-D10C-4E4A-B18E-164B97C0B9A5

Though these are only lens to body adaptors - I'm sure they do the reversing filter adaptors though.

Jessops appear to have them

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s15650/0/Close-Up-Accessories/Pentax/Lens-Reverse-Adapter-49mm-M/details.aspx?&comp=n

Silly price though

If it was print film then the printers would probably have compensated for colour balance when printing. If you scan the negs you will see the diference. (you might even be able to tell just by looking at them - though it is hard to tell given the orange cast of colour negative film)

The DPI setting in the picture file is a notional figure in some ways. If you actully printed an unedited file K10D file at 72dpi it woud come out at about 53x35 inches!!. If you have reduced it down to A4 you will be printing at a bit more than 300 Dpi anyway. Setting the DPI (without scalling the image) is really just a way of resizing it.

It does, however, seem odd that most cameras still leave that value as 72dpi. 300 would be better!