Curious as to what makes the *ist D more so than the K100D.

But presumably for slightly different reasons, given its metering limitations with pre-A lenses.

Obviously there are all kinds of reasons that the K10D is a great choice - 10 rather than 6; SR, DR, SDM, ergonomics (I've played with my brother's *ist D and in every sense I could see, Pentax have improved the feel of the controls with the '10). With A-lenses and beyond, compatibility is complete.

But if you're specifically looking at compatibility with old lenses, sadly the metering issue is a minus.

Of course, it's looking more and more like simply replacing the screen with a DS one solves this too without introducing metering errors, according to Pschlute, so factor this into the equation and the concerns are moot, it would seem.

On this note, what is the actual difference between the DS screen and the K10D's?

Splendid. I love the irony, though, that your picture of it appears to have been taken with a Nikon D200.

Are they any good? Not so much the AF adapter aspect, which would be fun to have, but optically.

I have a couple of non-Pentax TCs (one's a Takumar and the other one's Jessops branded), and I haven't been all that impressed with them.

Typically, for instance, I find that if I take a picture of a chimney, say, 100 yards away, with the 5.6 A 400, and then stick the TC on, I don't see any more actual detail with the 400x2 than the 400 on its own, enlarged.

It seems to me that the doubler loses in resolving power what it gains in image size.

Does this sound plausible? Or should I suspect my technique? (I mean, I always suspect my technique anyway, but I am quite careful).

Not at all, George. With your fine example, I have absolutely no need.

(Welcome Monobod!!)

I've had a look at this, and downloaded the building shot taken at the 18mm end.

Ouch - the barrel distortion really jumps out and bites you doesn't it.

I think that probably rules that lens out for me, regrettably. There's no point having a super-zoom if it's useless at the ends.

Although I suppose you can fix such distortions in software now? Still a faff, though, even if you can.

Sadly, only insofar as I noticed the rather handy EXIF viewer available as a Firefox add-in...

However, I really don't like the colour of your socks...

<SLAP>



Ta

According to the EXIF, this shot appears to have been taken at about 26mm.

What's it like at the extremes of focal length?

Thanks. I've made one final edit.

I think I need a new monitor!

I've gone back to the original print, and it seems that the black bits weren't quite black anyway - and there was so much reflected red light around that everything was suffused in it to one extent or another, even if nothing looked actually red. It was pretty hot from where I was standing. Heaven knows what it was like for the firemen, with all their gear.

Most grateful for all the feedback.