http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=67346&item=3880...

Two or three of these might do the trick, assuming you are indoors and the light is dim.

G

It is possible to buy neutral density (ND) filters, which act rather like sun-glasses, and block some of the light. Whether you can buy one that is dark enough to reduce the light by enough to permit time exposures of several hours, I don't know, but I rather doubt it.

G

You don't need to look for any special sort of filter for your lens. If it fits, it'll work, whatever the make.

Alternatively, if you have, or intend to have, more than one lens (taking different sized-filters), buy a filter system, like Cokin. These are fixed to the lens via an adaptor. You then need only one filter of each sort, plus one adapter for each lens.

Explanations here:

http://www.karlu.com/cokin.htm

George

I have the cure to stop you lusting after both of these.

1 Buy the 77 Ltd, then you won't need the 85mm.

2 Buy the *ist D(S), then the 43mm won't seem so appealing. That's why you see quite a lot of them for sale, but never a 31mm.

Simple, eh?

George

I have both the 24-90 and the 28-105 power zoom. I concur with what's been said about the former: mechanically it's pretty sloppy, but the pictures are very sharp, and the range suits the DSLRs. As for the latter, I haven't had it long enough to have formed any conclusions yet, but it is quite well regarded.

Why both? Let's just say that I got the 28-105 at a very reasonable price (unlike the other one!). The only other zoom that appeals strongly in terms of range is the 18-55, but I reckon the image quality of the 24-90 is better (notwithstanding my earlier comments). Also, I believe (but haven't checked) that it is not compatible with 35mm cameras, so will be no good if a full-frame DSLR ever emerges.

The 28-70 f4 is universally said to be very good indeed, but the lens has a fatal flaw: it suffers from element separation, and there is no (economical) cure. If you buy one, don't pay too much for it.

George

I have book-marked your page, Kim, and will refer to it in future. Much better than the older PDFs on the Pentax site.

G

The ME Supper is a lonely meal, best accompanied by a good white Burgundy, and taken on the knee in a comfortable chair in front of the television.

However, if you are referring to the ME Super camera, then the first thing to do is to download the manual from here:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/customer_care/manuals_literature

Once you've read the manual, come back here for the answers to any questions that you might still have.

Good luck. Treat yourself to a good white Burgundy anyway as a reward for having the good taste to buy a fine camera.

G

All digital cameras of any quality record the date (and a load of other information) when you take the picture. It is part of the file, but it is not normally imprinted on the picture in the same way as a date is imprinted on a film negative. So you won't automatically see it when you view your pictures.

Page 101 of the manual shows you how to have the date shown when printing out a picture. Alternatively, if you are viewing your images on computer the program you are using should have a facility to display all the recorded data, including the date, the aperture, the shutter speed and what you had for breakfast.

If you want a good, free. viewer with simple editing facilities, download Irfanview.

http://www.irfanview.com/

G

Kim is quite right that a tighter hood would work with the 18-35 on the D/DS. However, I think JR is also right in saying that it probably doesn't make much difference in practice. I personally have shot pictures straight into the evening sun with this lens, and seen no ill-effects whatever.

Nonetheless, I have a variety of old hoods and experiment with them on different lenses on the D. Many lenses with a larger diameter than 49mm can safely be used with step-down rings so that 49mm filters and hoods can be used without the vignetting that would occur on a film camera. For instance, my FA 2.8 100mm macro, which has a 58mm filter ring, is quite happy with a 49mm hood designed for the narrower AOV of the 3.5 135mm.

G

Kim C's post about the 18-35 lens going for £80 prompted me to look for the lowest prices on the *ist D, and, lo and behold, the camera can now be had for £649 with the 18-35 at Empire Direct, and for £600 body-only at Park. The DS, a slightly less flexible camera, now costs more than the D.

At these prices, the camera represents amazing value. It's very well made, produces superb quality images large enough for anybody but a large format landscape photographer, and is unlikely to be bettered (I think) in the near future.

OK, it doesn't offer IS, and it is a bit slow in RAW mode for those who like to shoot continuously. That probably rules it out for about 10% of photographers. For the rest of us, it's a great buy, and I am considering getting a second body because soon it won't be there.

It's interesting to speculate what the future will bring. In terms of electronic wizardry, cameras have already gone about as far as they are likely to go. The MZ-S (2001) was a sturdier camera than the Z1-P (1994), but had fewer facilities except for better flash control.

The only significant improvements we can expect in future Pentax digital cameras (IMHO) are IS, write speed, and perhaps a larger sensor. The first and last of these will add a lot more to the cost, though no doubt cameras without them will continue to be available.

So to sum up, I reckon any future camera at an affordable price is unlikely to offer much more than the *ist D. Furthermore, quality is likely to be compromised in order to compete with Canon, and, like the MX, I think the *ist D will come to be seen in retrospect as a classic, with high production values and all the features one actually needs, as opposed to all the features the marketing people think we need.

George