I've never shot food Gary, so if this is absolute rubbish, please ignore, but I do like to dabble with still lifes and close-ups now and again.

I would go for natural, soft light and play with DOF, shooting at F2 to F4 with a 50mm lens, or a slightly narrower aperture with something like a 135 would produce some nice shots. I don't know if you own any of the older manual focus lenses, but something like a 135 Tak or SMC K135 which renders warmer tones would be really good for this type of shot.

Regards
David

Great advice Stuey, handling a camera is the only way to know whether or not it would suit. I can confirm though that the K-m DOES have focus confirmation in the viewfinder! At least, mine does! One feature it doesn't have which I find a little annoying is that you can't set the 'one press open, one press closed' shutter action in Bulb mode when using the K-m with a remote control, but this would only matter for long exposure landscapes.

Regards
David

Have you ever owned a K-m Jonathan? It seems you are very keen to put the OP off without having owned one (please correct me if I'm wrong); whether you actually wanted one or not is somewhat irrelevant.

You may be biased as a K200D owner? I have a K-m, a K-x and a K-5 so I can objectively assess the pluses and minuses. For £100 it's a great camera and would be a big step up from a IST. Have a look at the images in my Gallery taken with the K-m and also have a look at some of Shaun Wilson's (PUMA) K-m images. Shaun's are stunning.

For £100, I would thoroughly recommend the K-m and I don't think you could get anything close for this sort of money. For £180 I'm not so sure. BTW, mine is not advertised for sale, so I'm not trying to offload it, but I'd be happy to help the OP out if it is of interest.

Regards
David

I agree to some extent with the comments above, BUT:

I own a K-m and it takes the most delicious landscape and portrait shots; there's something about that CCD sensor that renders images more warmly than the CMOS in the K-x onwards.

It is much slower to respond than the K-x and any subsequent cameras - this is something you just get used to and wouldn't be an issue if upgrading from a IST.

It is nowhere near as good in low light as the K-x onwards, but at lower ISO's it's great

My copy has very accurate autofocus, more accurate than the K-x for some reason

All in all, it would be better to spend maybe £100 or so more and get a K-x or a K-r, but the K-m is a nice camera. If you are interested, I would be happy to sell you mine for £100 + postage as I now have a K-x and a K-5. I'm not particularly looking to sell, but at present it gets scant use. It has approx 22,000 clicks and is in VGC all round. For £100 I would include the 18-55 kit lens too. Please PM me if you are interested.

Regards
David

I love 'em all Barrie - the most delicate detail is present in the shadow areas and nothing is burned out.

Regards
David

Hi Nuri, you already know that I think the K-x is a fantastic camera. The IQ is better on the K-5, but not massively so. The biggest difference I notice is the ability of the K-5 to pull detail from shadow areas.

If I was buying another camera it would kave to be the K-5IIs, but I will wait and see what others think before buying one. By that time they will probably have come down a little in price!

Regards
David

Just a quick question Gary, where is the 3m measured from? Is it the camera sensor, the bayonet mount or the front of the lens?

Regards
David

Wouldn't your business would be in greater jeopardy if no photographer at all turned up to shoot the most important day in someone's life? I would have thought that an assistant at least is a common sense approach, so they could fill in come an emergency, and if not required for this could support you by taking candid shots during the day whilst the main phtographer focusses on the more formal images.

Regards
David

It needs to be pretty sharp for £1500

I think my Sigma 105 DG EX is better VFM

Cheers
David

The Sigma 105 advertised on here recently gives 1:1 macro, but it is a bit more expensive than the manual routes mentioned. I tend to use all three approaches, i.e. genunine macro lens, manual tubes and reversing, but the most consistent results are obtained with the macro lens. The most fun (and most difficult) is reversing something like the 50mm F1.7 (very sharp), but I haven't yet tried reversing one on a 200mm lens! I might give this a go.

Regards
David