I only have Sigma lenses - I'd own Pentax lenses but cant justify the extra cash for equivalent range/speed combinations... But that is only a setup for the question...

I've noticed that when I use the camera without the Converter, the exif data (well, the parts that are reported by Windows - I realize there's loads more data) is exactly correct - aperture, lens length,speed,iso,etc.... but if I use the TC, the lens length is reported as zero while all the rest is fine.

Is this the TC, or do the Sigma's not talk thru the TC properly? Could I bother someone that has the 1.7x AF TC to take a photo with a Pentax zoom and let me know if the lens length is reported correctly, or at all ?

Thanks

Lots of Cards... They're getting really cheap now... I've got a couple dozen 1 and 2 GB cards... But make sure they're protected after the shoot...

I d/l them from the camera to the HD on the PC, which is backed up nightly to a USB attached hard drive, (which itself is backed up on a weekly basis to a USB drive on my friend's network - we have a mutual backup thing going...see below) and every time I get 3 or 4 gigs of "new" photos, I burn a DVD just to be sure. Might sound like overkill, but I've worked in IT long enough to see many drives crash and burn...

Backup is never perfect, but HDD's are cheap, CD and DVD's are cheaper, and as long as you get quality disks, they should last at least our lifetime...

(Mutual Backup : (Only really useful if you have HIGH speed internet) Find a trusted friend with a home network, buy them a USB drive big enough to hold your data. Figure out secure access and setup an FTP connection pointing to that drive. Start writing... It saved my friends skin once - he just bought a new USB drive to replace the one that died, hooked it up, downloaded from his "FTP Drive" on my system, and had full data again... I haven't had to do the same yet, but fully expect to someday...) We check the backup drives regularly, and I consider this my convenient failsafe - or as close to failsafe as I can likely get. The chances of both units and both locations (one in Ontario, Canada and the other in Arizona, USA both dying at the same time are infinitesimally small...)

That's.... scary good. Zooming in demonstrates why so many people fear bugs - dangerous or not...

Works well in IE and Firefox on XP...

Hope I didn't do that either.... Sure didn't mean to.

I was about to say it's your accent - then remembered where the forum was based... We have a British Ex-pat that hangs around at the local watering hole with us, and he gets right irate when someone suggests that he has an accent - He says it's impossible for an 'Englishman' (note capitalization - that's how he says it) to have an English accent - goes on to state that he's probably the only one in the pub without an accent...

My french teacher in high school was from Trinidad, but had been taught at a University in London - now that was a complex accent...

We used a C-Clamp with an appropriately sized screw (to fit the camera's tripod socket) tack-welded onto it. With a large washer and nut you can ensure it's tight enough to prevent the camera from moving without driving the screw through your camera's baseplate and damaging it (as one of our helpers did - totally scrapped a K1000...)

Then, place your magazine on the floor, find a suitably high table to clamp onto, and you're set... (We used a couple sawhorses with a 2X4 to clamped across them to clamp the camera to, as we could slide the clamp back and forth along the board - we were copying very large antique naval charts, and some were up to 60 inches long and 40 inches wide...

We found that daylight-rated flourescent lights worked best, but that was with film, and Digi, with the ability to set WB, may make that a moot point...

Your idea of placing glass over the subject to hold it flat works, but adds the possibility of reflections - you'll need to place your lights carefully. Maybe take a look at that matte framing glass (or plexi or whatever it is...)

Been playing with my (Christmas present) 1.7x AF Adapter and have a couple questions since I know some forum members have them...

Checking out the AF function with a friends A 50mm f1.2 - should I set the SR for 77 (the closest to 75) or 50 ? (I'd guess 77, but it didn't seem to make any difference when I was experimenting, though that might have more to do with lens speed than SR)

And...

Still using the 50mm f1.2, while the manual suggests a simple calculation to determine aperture (Lens aperture X 1.7), it seems to suggest that the minimum aperture is 2.8, even when the calculation suggests something a bit faster... (f2.04 in this case...)
Am I reading this right? (Not that it's an issue - I'm pretty happy with the new toy...)

I have an M40 ((the same in respect to the frames as yours) and though I've not actually used the frames, I've just tried downloading a couple to try it out. and you just copy them onto the SD card, in the FRAME folder. Then, when you go into Frame mode, they're there to select from.

Just your latest in a LLOONNGG list of reasons not to buy a K10D going back to it's release date...

Of course it's up to you, but as far as the imminent change in status of the K10D from Camera to "Valueless Junk", it could be argued that, while factually technically correct, you have the time line all wrong. Yes, everything wears out eventually; but just because something is superseded doesn't mean it's junk.

Having said that, you are entitled to your opinion. BUT if you're interested in taking some pictures, you could do a lot worse (and some would say not a lot better) than a K10D, whether or not it's the latest, greatest...

2.2 lbs per kg - so 10 lbs is a touch over 4.5 kgs...