Check the batteries again. If you are SURE they are OK, and in the right way, then it's back to the shop and ask for a replacement.

G

I've been away, so I'm coming in late on this. Believe it or not, I did once own a clockwork camera. It was made by Ricoh for use underwater, and came with a separate housing, so out of the housing it was a normal camera with a very fast and quiet clockwork motor drive. It only worked for 15 frames, then needed winding up again, which just meant turning a knob underneath.

It was a superb camera; unfortunately it was stolen, and I never found another to replace it.

George

These cameras are so complicated that I'm afraid there is no alternative but to read the manual. It's a bore, but it must be done!

G

"Manual" means YOU have to do it, with your own bare hands!

From the Latin: Manus = a hand

G

Have a look at Ebay, and also at some photographic magazines which carry advertisements for used equipment, as well as on-line shops.

In the UK, Amateur Photographer magazine is useful, and Ffordes and MXV are shops with good lists of gear:

https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm
http://www.rcomputers.co.uk/mxv/home.html

Bear in mind that in general the trade sellers will give you about half what they hope to sell the item for. Ebay prices are usually rather lower than shop prices, but can be higher if the item is scarce.

G

It's not much more fiddly than the system you're used to. The only real difference is that the auto diaphragm doesn't work, so you have to take the picture in stopped down mode. Not great for action shots, but fine for static subjects.
One other problem is that the auto-manual lever goes under the low overhang of the pentaprism, and can be awkward to operate if you have big fingers.
G

Have a look on Ebay. There are plenty of ads for stick-on protectors.

G

Kim,
Do you do your own processing? Printing in particular.
George

I think you've been unlucky. The MZS doesn't have a bad reputation for reliability. However, you're going to have to go digital sooner or later, so why not get Pentax to give you a new *ist D?
G

I have to agree with Matt that these results probably reflect differences in the degree of sharpening applied in-camera rather than differences in the resolving power of the lens/sensor combinations.

I would be flabbergasted if the 750Z with its tiny sensor and cheap lens could outperform a D or Ds with the 24-90 zoom.

I also think it is not realistic to compare just one element of a lens's performance. It's easy enough to improve one element if you don't care what happens to the others.

It would be interesting to see what Matt can do in Photoshop with these images.

G