John,

My first GOOD camera was an SPII, bought brand new with a month's pay in 1973. (Today's DSLRs are a bargain by comparison.) I have an SPII now, for nostalgic reasons, so I know exactly what you mean.

But I wouldn't, today, plan to build up a system based on 42mm. However, each to his own, and I wish Mac well.

George

PS: I know the lenses CAN be used on modern bodies, just as you CAN walk if you want to go from London to Birmingham. But let's not pretend that either are very convenient.

Mac,

To be honest, you are rather flogging a dead horse by buying camera bodies that are over thirty years old. By now most of the good ones have been bought by collectors, and the few coming on the market are likely to have been pretty well used and abused.

Even if you buy one that looks good, there's no guarantee it won't fail tomorrow. Wouldn't you be better off buying bayonet stuff? At least then the lenses could be used on new or recent cameras.

Regards

G

UK: Tel: 01273 820626
International: Tel: +44 (0) 1273 820626
or via e-mail at [email protected]

G

I'd risk it. But then, I am a risk-taker.

G

Points taken, Mannesty,

I think Pentax is being driven by the tactics of the copier company which seems to dominate the photography industry now. Their policy is to introduce "new" models every week or two, and because people equate newer with better they will choose the latest model they see, irrespective of its intrinsic merits.

Pentax weren't late in attacking the DSLR market. Unfortunately, the Philips chip which was intended for their first SLR (a D version of the MZ-S) was so bad that the whole project had to be abandoned. This cost Pentax a lot of money, a lot of time, and a lot of market share. Contax also used the same chip, with the result that they went under.

The current strategy is apparently to build a larger user base by having several choices at the bottom level, and then to introduce a higher-end model (the D MkII) which will have more pixels, more speed, and perhaps image stabilisation.

We shall see. Meanwhile, I'm happy with my two Ds (that's D plural), and like JR will be building my lens collection while waiting. Now where's that 12-24?

G

It may have escaped your attention, Mannesty, but the later models were priced much lower than the D, in order to appeal to a wider market. So a reduced feature set is both reasonable, and nothing to be ashamed about.

It has been common practice for years to sell a disabled version of something at a lower price. Hence the SP500 (with a hidden 1/1000 sec top speeed), or Windows XP Home.

Of course, many people are waiting for the D Mk II, with a better feature set. Let's hope the wait isn't too long.

G

Have a look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060104pentaxistdl.asp

The DL is newer than the DS, but inferior in many ways, except for the larger LCD. It features a cheaper "penta-mirror" instead of a prism, to bring it into line with the quality standards of Canon and Nikon.

G

At least three manufacturuers are offering 4GB SD cards, or will do so shortly.

The present *ist D range is aimed primarily at people upgrading from compact p&s cameras. Guess what sort of card most of them use.

There are MUCH more important things to worry about than memory cards.

G

Get another card, and see if you get the same problems. If you do, you have a faulty camera. If not, you have a faulty card.

I would recommend AGAINST constant re-formatting of the card. It doesn't help anything, and may damage the card over time.

George

I seem to recall that the K2 was considerably more expensive than the other two K camera bodies, and this may explain their relative scarcity - plus the fact that some may have fallen by the wayside with irreparable electronic faults.

But I never let trivial matters like cost come between me and a good camera (which is why I am poor today), and as I had been hankering after an ES/ESII, the K2 proved irresistable.

Sadly, it was stolen, and at about the same time the ME appeared.

G