As a percentage, or in total? I can well believe the former, but I find that overall I have more "good" photographs to show from three and a half years with a DSLR than thirty with a film camera.

G

The K10D was ground-breaking, too, and staggeringly so for the price.

You haven't been using Pentaxes for very long. Historically, they have been one of the most innovative camera companies, and set lots of precedents.

I would be interested to hear what these issues are.

Have Nikon or Canon caught up with the K10D yet? If so, I haven't noticed.

I have to say, Ben, that I am sure the new camera will have some improvements, but I doubt it will create as much surprise and delight as the K10D.

G

I think Dan is correct. Canon have incorrectly described their 1D Mk 2 camera as being APS-H when it's not. This is what that Wikipaedia article is referring to. Elsewhere, it correctly describes H as being almost a 2:1 format.

I suspect Pentax will be using a sensor similar to the Canon one in size, if these rumours are true.

Most, perhaps all, DA lenses are capable of being used with a larger frame size than APS-C. It is therefore quite possible that the next top-of-the-range model will have a larger sensor but still use DA lenses.

G

Digital SLRs have now reached the point where manufacturers are adding gimmicks rather than useful features.

I won't be buying another DSLR for a while. None of these new features are worth anything to me.

Pentax should concentrate on enlarging the lens line, producing lenses more quickly, and adding SDM to as many as possible.

G

Andrea,

Sad news. But repairing it is likely to cost more than buying a replacement on Ebay.

G

Don't tell me - you were using a beta version of a new panoramic stitching program.

It's rather effective.

G

We know now.

G

I didn't actually say they were best, just not bettered. Specifically, the 200mm macro and the 85mm 1:1.4 are generally considered to be close to optical perfection, and they did not exist in K or M form.

Although I think JR is right to say that the optical design of 50mm K-mount lenses didn't change from K to FA, there were improvements in coatings that should give later lenses a slight edge.

G

I chose my words with care. There are some lenses from the A era which haven't really been bettered since. They are all primes, because zooms have progressed more than primes in the past twenty or so years.

Examples are the A 50mm 1.7, the A* 200 f4 macro, and the A* 85mm 1.4.

And before people jump up and down, by "bettered" I mean significantly bettered. The FA equivalents of the lenses I mentioned are themselves superb, no worse, and possibly marginally better than the As, with the stress on marginally.

I would expect to find that the 16-50 is rather sharper than the A 28mm, but I haven't actually compared them. The A 28mm 1:2.8 is not a stellar performer.

G

I jest not.

Take any prime lens from the M era, and the modern FA or DA lens will be better optically. Construction, and ease of focussing (manually), are of course another matter.

There is a reason why modern lenses command a higher price.

G