Seems to me like they're ceasing Pentax gear altogether. Up to them I spose...

Dan

Lovely shots there Tim - I especially like nos. 2, 6 and 12 - beautiful colours.

Dan

Peter,

Can you set the ISO manually on this model? If so, would it work by taping over the DX coding on the casette so the camera can't try to read it?

I'm guessing you've already given the contacts a good clean.

Dan

Hi Mike,

The W20 does have optical zoom (3x), so it may well be just what you're after, although I haven't handled one myself. It's had good reviews, as far as I know.

Specs are here.

Dan

P.S. I don't think George will agree with me on this one!

Dan

I'm not particularly familiar with MTF charts, but I was recently looking at the Sigma website and saw that the measurements were using 10 and 30 line pairs per mm. But the Four Thirds catalogue shows 10 and 30 lines per mm. Is this the same thing in MTF speak? If not, then something got a bit skewed on the way to publication I think.

If it is the same, then you can't compare the charts for the different brands - they wouldn't show that the lenses from different manufacturers are better or worse than each other. But to the casual observer, one not as observant as John, it could imply that they were.

Whether you think that's Sigma trying to cover inadequacies in their designs, would probably depend on whether you're a stickler for own brand lenses, or are happy to accept that a company that pretty much only makes lenses, in a wide variety of fittings (and therefore potential for larger unit sales bringing down unit costs), can design lenses as good as traditional camera manufacturers.

If Pentax are happy to design lenses with Tokina, whose reputation as a lens manufacturer I would say is no better than Sigma's, I don't see why Sigma can't produce equal quality lenses, albeit without SMC.

I realise some here have had bad experiences with Sigma lenses, but there are also mentions of 'disconcertingly wobbly' Pentax optics, so each brand has their weaker points.

Tomorrow I will try a couple of comparison shots with my Sigma 10-20 and Pentax 16-45, to see what I find. I'd expect that the Pentax will be slightly better, purely for the reason that the Sigma has to cover a wider field of view, and therefore is a more compex design, but I'll see.

Dan

[quote="Mannesty. . . spending her housekeeping money again.
quote]

...and making a bit too.

Dan

Looked okay to me too - only a little bit of 'brassing' on the hot-shoe ( mine's got a shiny sheen to the bady where my hand grips it and the green square on the mode dial is quite worn) so this one looks to have been used less than mine.

Seems like a good deal.

If you wanted it, you could always ask the seller how many exposures have been made with it...

Dan

Hi Alan!

Just had a look , can I suggest you replace the picture at the top (the Text and Photo), which I'm guessing is one jpeg, with a gif for the text, and a jpeg for the photo - I reckon this would look clearer and do your photographic skills more justice.

And you can take the "This website is still partly under construction..." bit out now surely, I didn't find a link that didn't work.

And, sorry to be picky but unfortunately it's in my nature, but it's 'professional' (home page, 3/4 of the way down).

Nice, simple site though - does the job!

And we know where to send the Christmas cards now.

Dan

Well, I reckon it would needa bit of drying out, but it would be a good excuse to upgrade to the 16-45.

Dan