I bought an ME in New Orleans the year they came out. It, and the MX, took the photographic world by storm, being the smallest SLRs ever made. I sold it to a friend a year or two later to fund getting the ME Super. The friend still has the ME.

It seemed like a little jewel compared to the comparatively large Spotmatic and the K2 which it replaced in my bag.

G

John,

I'm watching you closely! Nothing escapes me.

Actually, I just happened to notice that there was a 55mm going on Ebay for not much money, and saw your name as the high (and only) bidder.

Hope it's OK.

G

Just wondering why you want two of them?

G

50mm 1.7 or 55mm 1.8?

G

My minimalistic kit, which is what I take with me when wandering around a strange city, is simply the *ist D and the 24-90 lens. For film I would use a Super A and a 35-135.

The Super A is about the same size and weight as an MX, but gives the option of using full or partial automatic exposure as well as manual. This flexibility has advantages.

In the Himalayas, where I wanted my gear to be as light as possible, I just took the Super A and 50mm 1.7. The combination of the clear light and such a sharp lens produced some stunning pictures.

G

Tony,

I enjoyed your pilgrimage site. Thank you for the link. And I appreciated the bare-bones HTML, too. There's a virtue in simplicity.

G

What's the attraction of full-frame digital - apart from the obvious ones of high cost, extra weight, bulky bodies, huge file sizes, inability to handle nice small DA lenses, slower processing on the pc, slower back-ups, and the need for more batteries, larger memory cards, and larger hard disks?

Ah! You don't have to buy a 14mm lens. So there's a cost saving!

And, of course, you can print up to broadsheet newspaper size. A vital requirement for all of us.

George

Pentax are not the only ones missing out. So are you, by waiting. When the DS2 does become available, are you then going to wait for the DS3?

There is very little difference between the DS and DS2, and you can also consider the D, which can still be found if you search. It is more flexible that either of the other two.

Modern technology is always going to offer a better upgrade soon. How long are you going to wait? While you're waiting, other people are out taking pictures, and guess what? They'll be better than yours will be with your new camera because they'll have had more practice.

G

It is interesting to consider that the 35mm frame has a ratio of 1:1.5, which is quite close to the Golden Mean (1:1.618, approx). Olympus's 3:4 system is 1:1.33, and an 8x10 print is 1:1.25.

Surveys have apparently shown that a large majority of people prefer the ratio of the golden mean over any other ratio, so it is perhaps surprising that 35mm film isn't supplied in the format 24 x 39, and it is particularly surprising that photo-finishers persist in offering print sizes that don't equate to negative sizes.

G

Optical sensors have been around for thirty years or more. Admittedly the earlier ones were mono only, but the technology is far from new.

I actually don't expect many more significant improvements in digital cameras. In my cupboard I have a Leica from the 1940s with shutter speeds from B - 1,000, and an F2 lens. It can take just as good a picture as any later camera. The "improvements" between 1942 and 2005 are mainly to do with convenience. It'll be the same with digital.

So, yes, we'll get bigger buffers and higher frame rates, but not much else (IS is nothing to do with digital). And I don't anticipate much improvement in image quality.

But lower prices? Definitely.

Face it, this is already mature technology.

G