Thank you for these replies, which provide food for thought.

I would not normally stray from Pentax, but as they do not sell any wide-angle at this focal length, and do not propose to at anywhere near the price of the Voigtlander, I thought I would consider the matter.

The mirror problem is real, though getting infinity focus on a 12mm ens may not be an issue, given the DOF.

Furthermore, the smaller mirror on the DSLRs might not be such a problem as a 35mm mirror.

I think I'll talk to my local camera shop.

G

The reason for asking is that I am still wondering how to get a good super-wide-angle for my D.

The preferred option (at present) is the 12-24mm zoom. BUT, the Voigtlander 12mm lens is fairly well thought of (bar the light fall-off, which will be less noticeable on APS), and probably quite a lot cheaper. Given it won't have any auto features, but on the D it will expose correctly at any aperture in AV mode, and focus really isn't very critical at any aperture.

So, is there such an adapter, and any thoughts on the matter?

G

PS: I know about Sigmas. I don't want to lower the tone of my lens collection.

VAT is in addition to customs duty, and is calculated on the cost of the item, plus the duty, plus the shipping cost.
G

All high-tech gear gets cheaper every year. That won't change. So, buy now. If you wait 'til tomorrow, you'll wait for ever. Tomorrow never comes.

G

Mac,

I'm not aware that there was an f1.2 Super Tak, or any such Tak.

Do you mean 1:2 AKA f2?

Your "clarification" has muddied the waters further.

G

Yes, I see.

Unfortunately the data doesn't show anything unusual.

However, is this how all your pictures are turning out, or just a few, or just this one?

If it's all or several of them, then back to the shop it should go.

If it's just one, then I wonder if some freak circumstance might have caused it. With sensitive electronics, it's conceivable that something like a mobile phone transmitting near to the camera might have been responsible.

Or even a poltergeist. Don't laugh. I lived with a poltergeist once. Anything electrical packed up as soon as she came near. Cost me a fortune.

But I'm sure the explanation for this is more banal, and more easily solveable.

G

Yikes!

Are you getting results like this in sunlight? Your picture looks terrible, though conceivably it could be caused by the camera attempting to compensate for the flash not firing. For this to have this result, you would need to have the camera set to adjust the ISO when there was not enough light.

If all your pictures are like this, take the camera back. If this is a one-off, then, as I said, there may be a rational explanation.

I'm going to send you a private message. Respond to the email address I give you, and attach the original picture. There may be some clues in the EXIF data.

G

Incidentally, DSLRs are not designed to output a "print-ready" image.

You will have to tweak your images in order to optimise them, either for viewing on-screen or for printing.

If you know nothing about digital image editing, I suggest you start very gradually. Download Irfanview and play with the Gamma, Contrast and Saturation settings in the Image menu.

http://www.irfanview.com/ (It's free.)

Once it looks right, resize the picture if you want to view it on screen. 1024*768 is a good choice.

Finally, sharpen it and save it. Don't overwrite your original file.

Always shoot the largest, best-quality JPEGs (until you're ready to graduate to RAW).

G

Sorry to be blunt, but most problems with these cameras are down to operator ignorance, not camera error.

The RTF (built-in flash) on a DSLR operates in P-TTL mode, which means that it fires a rapid succession of "pre-flashes" to enable the camera to assess exposure. This is what you are seeing through the view-finder, and consider to be "wasted" light.

Bear in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect flash exposure system. When using the camera very close to the subject there are all sorts of reasons why the camera may give the wrong exposure. The only sensible approach is to put it on manual, and experiment with aperture settings until the exposure is OK.

Bear in mind, too, that the RTF is very low-powered. It is always better to use a proper flash-gun.

I can't access your link, but I presume the pictures you are showing are of low quality. Guess what? Low quality settings give low quality results. Why somebody would spend a load of cash on an expensive camera and then use low quality mode is a mystery. If you are short of memory, buy another card.

From what you have said, there is is absolutely nothing wrong with your camera, other than its owner's impatience. DSLRs are complicated things, and it will be months before you master yours. If you wanted an idiot-proof camera, you should have bought a point&shoot. So, sell it, or RTFM.

George

Kim,

I suspect it's the latter reason. I do agree that the MZ-S had it's strengths (not least build quality), but at a time when the opposition was piling on the features, it was an odd decision to bring out a successor with a reduced feature set.

G