Thanks John, would that be one of these:

http://www.trailwise.co.uk/trailwise-poles.html

??

Well, I'll have other stuff with me.

The 18-250 would mean that I wouldn't need to cart much up the fells though, and no annoying the other half while I faff about changing lenses. She was very indulgent when we were in Australia, but I did feel under pressure on the umpteenth stop...

It's not so much "one lens only, which one?", it's "should I opt for versatility and convenience at the expense of perhaps losing out at the wide end - or not".

I know it's not an easy question to answer - if it was, I would have by now


I would appreciate advice on the monopod/walking pole though, as well, and that might be an easier answer to find, since the requirements are pretty clear - light, strong, collapsible, with a (preferably coverable) tripod thingy at the top. One to suit an average height bloke would be fine, and I'd be prepared to pay for quality - it needs to last forever, like my tripod has.

Oh, and can someone recommend a decent walking pole that doubles as a monopod?

Thanks again.

Ok, I know the questions I'm about to ask have been covered in lots of threads before, and I've read them all. But time's gone by since they were all done to death, and I'd be very grateful for a 'fresh pair of eyes' take on it all.

This time next week I'm off to the Lakes for a week, and weather-permitting I'll be spending quite a bit of it up in the fells. And in my normal style, I've put off making any decision for far too long.

The question is: Versatile or wide?

Put another way:

18-250 (Pentax or Tamron), or Sigma 10-20 (sadly the 12-24 is just too expensive)? Not interested in fisheye, so the 10-17 is out.

I'll be buying from SRS, and I'll be asking Chris if he can have a good look at whatever he sends me, since there won't be time for return/replacement in the event of a dud.

So, good people, your thoughts please - since I need to make a decision.

Anything, the more unconventional your thoughts the better, since I've been agonising about the conventional issues for ages.

My thanks in advance.

[I currently have nothing wider than 18, but various things up to 400, so long isn't an issue.]

I think it works very well, apart from the strange edge effects.

A very good photograph, but I hate it. The combination of innocence (baby), fashion (sunglasses) and age (the sardonic expression - coincidence, of course - wrinkles around the eyes, which will disappear in time) creates a dissonance for me that I find quite unpleasant.

As art, I think it's very good. As a baby photo, horrible.

There you go, you did ask

Aha.. I can see the new site today. I guess it was just my DNS server still pointing the URL at the old one.

Edit: very nice. I have to stop looking at it now, though - it's making me want to spend a lot of money.

Strange... I can only seem to see the old site (with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS).

Hi, and welcome. First off, you are clearly by no means at a complete loss. You've posted in the right place, you've obviously done some research, and you've specified your requirements and constraints very clearly. All these are relatively unusual amongst many new posters here.

Secondly, the information you give suggests very strongly that you should eliminate the K100D from your short list. Although very capable, the K100D (the next one down the range from, and of a similar vintage to, the K10D) is aimed more at the technically not-so-confident, and its advantages are greatly outweighed in my view by the additional capabilities of the K10D.

I went straight to the K10D from an old Pentax film SLR a little over a year ago, and I'm very glad I did.

The K200D specifications are quite similar to the K10D's. They're here:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/cameras/digital/digital_slr/

Key differences:

- the K10D has an additional knurled knob at the front, which can be programmed to do a variety of things in different modes. The K200D lacks this, and although it might not sound much, it makes quite a big difference to the ease of control. This on its own would make the K10D a better bet than the K200D for me.

- the pentaprism viewfinder of the K10D is generally thought to be brighter than the pentamirror of the K200D

- K200D takes AA batteries, K10D has a rechargeable Lithium battery, which lasts a lot longer and holds its charge for months, but it's best to have two at least.

Not sure about other differences - I expect there are some, although apart from minor weight and size differences, I can't see much.

Good luck. If the K20D is too expensive, I'd get the K10D, an extra battery, and once he's used to it, a couple of second hand A-series or later lenses depending on what he wants to do.

-------------
Edit: on re-reading your post, if his lenses were new with the film SLR, and are therefore only 10 years old, it's very likely they'll be usable with no restrictions.

There are some limitations with very old lenses, but they're not show-stoppers.

By popular request, and because it would be rude not to...

Yes indeed, thank you for taking the trouble - much appreciated. I'm planning to go to Farnborough this year, which will be my first big airshow since going digital, unless I can get to Biggin, which is sadly looking a bit unlikely at the moment.

Metering off the grass is an idea I've not come across, and the shutter speeds are very much along the lines of what I aim for.

Thanks again.