The clue is in the name. SMC stands for Super Multi Coating, and is Pentax's patented system for reducing flare and improving light transmission.

Although prime lenses without SMC are fine if you don't point them into the sun, the large number of elements in a typical zoom lens will progressively reduce the light throughput of an uncoated zoom, and will also give much worse flare performance.

So, non-SMC zooms are not just cheap, they're nasty.

G

The problem is that Canon "sponsors" DP Review, and places a lot of ads in the photography magazines.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

DP Revies is a rubbishy site anyway. There's so much unimportant detail that you can't see the wood for the trees.

And why they can't review every camera with the same Tamron lens is beyond me.

G

If you mean the NiMH 2500, then the answer is that they will both give you loads of pictures, as will any NiMH battery over 1800, and I would take whatever is cheapest.

G

Let me clarify this.

The Pentax digital SLRs behave rather like manual exposure cameras when using K and M lenses.

You press a button to take a meter reading, and this sets the correct shutter speed for whichever aperture you have selected. If the light then changes, you will have to press the button again to get a new reading and reset the shutter.

In practice it's very quick (quicker than using a KX or MX because you only press one button; you don't have to twirl a dial). But, it's not automatic, as it would be on a camera like the Z1-P.

Furthermore, if you press the DOF preview button you will get a proper over/under exposure indication in the viewfinder.

So John is right to say that A and later lenses are better, in that they provide full automation, but if you have a load of K&M lenses, then it's a no-brainer. They'll do you very well on a D or DS. I have two D bodies and nine K and M lenses, and they're not for sale.

I also have several AF lenses, of course, but it's nice to use the older lenses when I am in a more contemplative mood and want to think about what I am doing. I like to think it results in better pictures.

G

Kim,

I thought it should have been Junkers with an S, but found lots of references on Google to Junker. Ah, well.


John R

Edward Fitzgerald! I have a small leather-bound edition of his magnum opus. A great scholar, and a great poet (he translated very freely), but I wonder how many people today know who he is and why he was so famous. How nice to be related to such an eminent Victorian.

G

A Junker is bad news, but not as bad as a Fokker. Or did you mean junker?

G (showing his age and being pedantic).

Let's hope it's the batteries. Otherwise I doubt that there is much anybody can do.

Still, it's done thirty years. Although my Leica shutter is still working after 63 years, it's had a pretty easy time in my ownership. I think thirty years is good going for any mechanical contrivance, especially when it's not made of cast iron.

I bought a K2 when they first came out. Lovely camera. However, I wouldn't advise replacing it because the next one could also go at any time. For the same money you could probably get a ZX5 or 5n.

The biggest single problem with continuous light is that it gets VERY hot. You need a surprising amount of power to provide enough light for photography, and this device is likely to provide only just enough. And anyway, you need two light sources ideally, if not more, so the cost is considerable.

Unless you shoot only in the winter, or have AC, I would think twice.

Also, if cost is an object, you can get 1000W of halogen lighting on a stand from various places for £30.00 or less. A DIY diffuser made of net curtain would be required.

You can nowadays get flat flash equipment, and this is what I would like, if money were no object. Until then, I will continue using conventional studio flash.

G

John,

The fact that Wein cells work is not disputed. The claim that silver cells cause an error, however, is rubbish. Just because a myth is reported in the forums of DPReview doesn't magically make it fact.

As Kim says, all authoritative sources agree that silver cells work, and unless you have real evidence to the contrary, it is surely best not to give these spurious claims further credence by repeating them on here.

George

Well said, Sir!

G