Lots of people use the Pentax AF540FGZ (which is P-TTL, not TTL, by the way). It is not cheap, but it's very good.

Reports of door problems refer mainly to its smaller brother, the 360.

G

They have many more cars per head in the Gulf. Parts of India seldom see a car.

G

He was superb, but I don't agree that landscape photography is the supreme test. It's why I would place HCB higher in the pantheon. But Ansel comes second.

G

Welcome to the world of Limited glass and unlimited possibilities.

G

So what, in your view, was the reason Ricoh bought Pentax? To use the lens blanks to make coasters?

Ricoh's takeover, in my view, has cemented the future of Pentax. And of the K-mount. All Pentax has ever lacked is marketing expertise and cash. Now they have both, as well as an owner that knows the brand of yore and wants to develop it.

Optimistically yours

Tigger

AKA G

I haven't had the kit lens, but I used to own the 16-50, and when I dropped it off the roof of my car (ouch!) I replaced it with a 17-70.

Frankly, although the 17-70 is a very good lens, it just isn't in the same league as the 16-50. As Matt says, the latter has that indefinable something that makes you say "Ah!". It's not quite on a par with the Ltds (and I own the three proper Ltds), but it's not too far away.

For those who place great stress on image quality, and like the extra stop, and the SDM, and the weather-sealing, then it's the lens to go for. If these things are of less importance than size and weight and more range at the top end, go for the 17-70.

One last thing I should say about the 17-70. It encourages you to try other lenses. With the 16-50, however, once it's on the camera you never want to take it off.

G

Personal taste plays a big part in all this, and also, perhaps, the condition of one's own eyes and one's own monitor.

For me, Piotro's images (as seen on his website) are slightly over-sharpened, and slightly over-saturated. I stress "slightly".

David's on the other hand, I consider to be sometimes slightly under-sharpened. A good example of this is his B&W picture of Larry. I would also have given it a tad more contrast.

Perhaps they have been exaggerated for illustrative purposes, but I find the examples on the smart-sharpening site to be a bit over-done and artificial-looking.

Excessive sharpening and excessive saturation are the two great sins of digital photography, in my view. Closely followed by plasticisation - which makes everybody look like their dummy in Madame Tussauds.

So, I reiterate that in my view, every image will benefit from SOME post-processing, but many people (though not David!) overdo it.

G

I've put a not dissimilar paint on the bottom of my boat, in hopes it too won't need doing for at least twenty-five years.

It cost less than £135 million, but not much.

G

Yes, I realised later that I was looking in the wrong place. I love pictures that take advantage of the light. Whether colour or black and white, pictures are always enhanced, and often only work at all, if the light forms a central part of the composition.

G

Have a good shoot, Puma. Wish I could join you.

G