mikew wrote:
I an not too sure that the Enron shareholders would agree with you.

And
Oh, go on Mike, you know you want to, g'wan, g'wan g'wan ...
Geoff

Just to extend the discussion a trifle
A Profession is usually considered to have a single body that regulates the activity of its members.
What single body regulates photographers in the UK?
Geoff

In the beginning - for me that would be the '60s - if one wanted some photographs taken that were better than snapshots, one engaged the services of a "Commercial Photographer".
Working with a real pro was an eyeopener: tell the guy what you wanted, and he would show you what could be done to achieve this.
I do not think that the possession of a certificate or two means more than "well I've done the course".
This sounds like a parallel argument running elsewhere about Engineers and Technicians. Engineers, of course, being those who got a degree in Engineering, while Technicians had only been taught how to fix the screw-ups made by the Engineers. And, if this sounds like I am engaging in anti-snobbery, I hold both sorts of qualifications. Neither "qualify" me to get inside a piece of machinery to photograph the wear on some conveyor chains - but I have done exactly that.
Most of the Great British Engineers did not study to get a qualification. Nor did some of the really World Class photographers.
H C-B studied in the studio of a painter (Lhote)
Ansel Adams was effectively self-taught, but practiced as a Commercial Photographer for 30-odd years.
So, to get back to where this started, a Pro does it for money, a "real pro" is an expert.
Geoff

Better a competent amateur than an incompetent "professional".

At my youngest daughter's wedding, a "Professional" was engaged. He had all the right stuff: Brochure, Website, Client List, Square Swedish box thingy, etc. Me, I'm just the bride's father clutching an MZ-50.
The "Professional" delivers an Album, I just hand over two packs of 7x5 prints. The album that they show people is mostly 7x5 prints, with one or two Photoshop enlargements.
The "Professional" is faffing around getting the composition right (they wish he had paid that much attention to the focus); I'm just framing and shooting.
Now I don't even rate myself as competent (compared to a lot of amateurs), but I suggest:
A "Pro" does it for money.
A "pro" is someone who really knows what they are doing - and does it!
Hence: a "pro" can also be a "Pro", but the reverse is not always true.
And one last thought - in the "Pro"'s family group, you cannot see my right arm - that's the one hiding the MZ-50
Geoff

Right Stu

If Stefan's cross-section is the right one (and my recollection is just plain wrong ) then it looks like most of the bits are of different diameters.
It is hard to see how the lens would assemble (and still feel right) unless it's the double element (fourth group).
Lets check - what do you mean by "won't focus properly"?
- when looking through the eyepiece across the whole range of adjustment?
- marks on the lens barrel don't line up the way that they should?
That's two different problems.
Geoff

This is from memory ...
Four elements in three groups.
Front group is two elements together - convex face to the front.
Center group - concave face to the rear.
Rear group - convex face to the rear.

The first quick check is whether it will focus to infinity - and with infinity somewhere near the index mark on the barrel.

Hope this helps
Geoff

You have two separate problems: long-sightedness and astigmatism.
Reading glasses can correct the first (and they really are a pain).
You need an opthalmic optician to fix the second.
You need the correction lens holder and the optician.
Noting where you are (like a long way from SRS) I would contact your local target shooting club and ask them for the name of an optician who provides lenses for shooting glasses.
If reading glasses work (even though they are a pain) they can provide the basic prescription for close-up work, and an ordinary optician should be able to take that, and establish the degree and orientation of your astigmatism, and then provide a lens to fit the holder.
Just remember to do your testing with the camera diopter adjustment set in the middle of its range of travel - then you can still fine-tune.
Geoff

Said greyhead.

You can still get the 2006 version from at least two sources. I have just grabbed it from CNet downloads to see if it will work with DNG files.

Now that should be clear enough for anyone.
Thanks, Matt
Geoff

I know that this question has been asked in several different ways, but ...
Can I use my AF240Z on my K200D without doing any damage to the camera body?
I am not too concerned about which Mode is the best one to use, provided the use is safe in electronic terms. If the flash/camera combination is safe, then I would like advice on the best setting(s) to use.
I do have an AF200S which will work (with some limitations) on all my 35mm bodies, but with the whole kit of flash filters, diffusers etc for the 240Z, I am reluctant to dispose of it without checking.
So, if anyone has used the K200/AF240Z combination, please tell me ...
Geoff