That's rich, Sir, coming from you.

At least I'm not bigotted, bitter, and boring.

G

In addition to his other problems, Viewfinder struggles with the concept that there is a relationship between price and quality.

G

Steve,

I suspect that one reason why some people prefer the results they get on film to what they get on digital is that they find digital optimisation to be something of a black art, and they haven't yet mastered it.

Silkypix is very easy to use once you know what you are doing. However, it would be wrong to suggest that it is easy to acquire the necessary knowledge. It takes time, and there's a lot to learn.

Have you done any digital editing at all, with scans for instance?

If you are starting completely from scratch, then I would advise getting a book to take you through the basic theory. Alternatively, there is a lot of stuff on the web.

The free version of Silkypix is as good as the paid version, as far as quality goes (which means it's very good); it simply lacks some facilities. Upgrade when you need to.

The inescapable fact is that to be a competent digital photographer, you are going to have to invest a lot of time learning how to process your images. But once you have spent that time, digi is quick, easy, and capable of superb results.

G

I agree with Matt.

Silkypix allows you to do virtually everything which could be regarded as equivalent to developing and printing with film.

I see Silkypix's role as "image optimisation", whilst Photoshop allows "image manipulation".

The former is just getting the best out of the shot you took, whilst the latter is changing it so that what you get is not what you took.

It's not quite as clear-cut as that in practice, but my view is that a film photographer switching to digital would not NEED Photoshop.

I think it really depends on whether you consider that you are producing "photographs" or "images".

G

Why do you suppose prints would be "terrible"? And why don't you try? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

G

I have a dark secret. I'm waiting for the price of second-hand LX's to fall far enough to justify me buying one but hardly or never using it. It's function will be to sit next to my old Leica as an example of photographic excellence.

G

Come back in a year and tell us how many pictures you took with it.

G

It would be the 31mm Ltd. The 77 is my favourite lens, but the 31 is used more.

The 16-50 is obviously more versatile, but size and weight are against it.

G

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200099971351&ssPage...

or:

http://tinyurl.com/3drw8p

G

I would not consider this to be a nice lens.

The problem is that it is very difficult to make a zoom lens with such a wide range of focal lengths. In this case the longest FL is more than ten times the shortest. This sort of ratio is common on cheap point and shoot cameras and camcorders, where image quality is not very important.

A good rule is not to consider a lens where the zoom ratio is greater than four, and preferably less.

The whole point of buying an SLR is to be able to fit the best lens for the job in hand. By buying just one lens, you are missing out on this vital feature, and might just as well buy a point and shoot camera.

For your camera, I would suggest you buy an SMC Pentax-DA 18-55 and a 50-200, or alternatively an SMC Pentax-F 70-210 (second-hand). You will get much better results, and the DA lenses are smaller and lighter than the Tamron.

Good luck.

G