It seems to me, from what is being said, that Pentax are guilty of producing a non-standard DNG.

I assume you are using the free software that came with the camera. Is it called Silkypix, or is it just made by them?

At one time, this was very much a stripped down version of the real Silkypix, and I would expect that it still is. Why give away something that you normally charge for?

I have used proper Silkypix for a long time, and think it's wonderful. Well worth paying for.

G

It's a pity you left out the Harlem picture, Barrie, which was the point of the set.

Not very PC, I suppose.

G

You may well be right. I saw this first on another site where it was very strongly suggested that some of the colour work was HCB's.

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but a new exhibition at Somerset House features HCB - with colour pictures.

I haven't been yet (it opens tomorrow) but on the basis of the preview pictures, I have to say that I find his monochrome work much more powerful.

HCB

G

K10,

Not sure what you are arguing about. Having a lot of second-hand lenses available is surely a good thing, and there is no good reason to keep quiet about it if it helps to promote the brand.

Thanks to Ricoh's cash, it now seems probable that Pentax will produce a 135-format DSLR in the next year or two. Unfortunately, I don't think they will make any money on it as most people are happy with smaller formats (even Canon and Nikon users). However, if it succeeds in stopping people from switching brands, then I suppose it will be worthwhile.

G

I bought an SPII in summer '73 prior to a safari trip. The Spotmatic F therefore either came out in late 1973 or in 1974.

In 1975 the K series arrived, so you have a choice of K2, KM, or KX. I bought a K2, and it was a superb camera.

G

I thought the 50mm had been discontinued a while ago.

Being an FA, it is presumably more expensive to produce than current lenses, and being a 50 it can't command a premium price to offset the higher cost - unlike the Limiteds.

And there is of course the 55m for those who want a lens around that focal length.

GH

Yes I agree that the 16-50mm is better than the 17-70mm in most areas but the question was:

With those requirements as I see it the only way to do that is with the 17-70mm, even second hand I doubt a 16-50mm/60-250mm/prime combo could be done for £1200.[/quote]Point taken. I was simply pointing out that there other lenses which comfortably surpass the "brilliance" of the 17-70, and which are not primes.

Nonetheless, I do consider the 17-70 to be a fine lens.

G

Yes. It is bad advice.

You like to talk as though you have immense experience of photography. During a period when I was rekindling an old interest in fiction, I took the opportunity of perusing a few of your many websites. (You are a true Jack-of-all-trades!)

On one of them I found this statement: "I have only in the last five years become seriously engaged with this pursuit." "This pursuit" being photography.

The photography site is sixth in a "hub" which lists your "websites in order of decreasing activity."

Now, you're obviously a very clever and a very busy man, but even if you fill every unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run, it is clear that you just don't have the knowledge to speak authoritatively on lens failure rates.

I suggest that you apologise to JR for your offensive suggestion that he was unethical. People who argue dishonestly (like planting a suggestion that some lenses have a failure rate of 49%) should use the word "unethical" sparingly.

Incidentally, I have never heard a person whom I respect use the pejorative term "fanboy". In my experience, it exists only in the vocabulary of persons whom I should not care to find sitting next to me at dinner.

G

PS: Please don't bother sending me another PM threatening legal action. If you do, I shall print it out and place it in the lavatory for it to amuse my guests - before serving a more utilitarian function.