From another forum...

A new K20D owner, on posting some of his new pictures, had his attention drawn to some dramatic CA on one side of one of them.

He asked:

The lens will probably fit, but the link doesn't!

It's nice when people want to past huge great long links that make you have to scroll the browser sideways, to do one of the following:

Use a URL tag like this, or

use a Tiny URL like this: http://tinyurl.com/37wysx

I have a Program A that I acquired in the same way!! It'll be hitting eBay in due course..

60 USD?

If they're both in good nick, I'd say not. If, as well, the 28mm is a Pentax one, it's a steal. I wouldn't buy a K1000 myself, but it's such a classic that there seem to be lots that do.

Don't take it personally, AJ... I emailed him about the Metz weeks ago... no reply to that either.

Pete does what he wants.. he takes comments on board that he thinks he can use, and ignores or attacks those that he doesn't. It's not an approach that will appeal to everyone, but there's no law that says he must.

It costs me nothing to wish him well, so I do.

I use the centre point too, and for most things, as you say, it's more reliable.

For fast-moving subjects, though, where it's difficult to keep the subject in the centre region, it isn't very reliable at all, not unreasonably, of course.

I've also found taking pictures at dance events where there are bright lights off-centre, and darkish subjects moving about, very hit and miss, so much so that I've resorted to MF.

I imagine faster lenses would improve the low-light performance, given that wide open while the AF is doing whatever it does, there's more light getting in than with a slow lens.

I wonder if those that are convinced of the slowness of Pentax AF compared with other brands', have done any comparisons, not only of the speed of the AF, but also its accuracy.

There was an interesting post a few months ago at pentaxforums.com, which I read occasionally, where someone had actually done this.

I can't remember the details, but the conclusion was that although Brand X (Canon, ISTR) was quicker to claim focus, the accuracy wasn't all that good in the kind of circumstances that Pentax AF is supposedly not good.

I don't know whether those results were reliable, but it does seem strange that the naysayers tend to bang on about speed, but not accuracy as well.

All that aside, I have to suspect, that if Pentax AF in good light isn't good enough for weddings and portraits, there are technique problems somewhere.

Well, it is, at least, true, and indeed it's not an unreasonable reaction.

Imagine for a moment, that you've been a Canon user for years. You see someone with a Pentax camera. You have a vague memory that Pentax were big in the 60s.

The more amazing thing is that there are these specs ads all over the place, that say "with Pentax lenses".

No one, to a first approximation, who sees those ads, will know anything about Pentax.

So don't knock it, when they say that. It's the beginning of a world take-over.

Funny you should say that. It's exactly what I do.

Ah, the olde ones are the best.

But it's Palistine, you fools...