I only noticed one stand with a model on last year but I don't think I spotted a single person that didn't have a camera slung around their neck...

I'll be there on the monday but you should know my face by now

I'll be stocking up on things like printer paper - there were good deals to be had with Ilford last year and I got a good deal on my Epson V600 Scanner too. I find it's more about accessories and peripherals than cameras and lenses personally - although I may pay closer attention with Pentax there this year.

Yes. It will give you a reproduction ratio of 2:1 (twice life size). What I was saying was it will have the same ratio whichever camera it's mounted on for any given focal length/extension.

Get the 75/2.8 for starters. Angle of view is about what a 45mm lens would give on 35mm film (so slightly wide normal) and it happens to be an excellent lens. When finances allow add the 55mm (the 45mm tends to be quite steep in price) and the 150/3.5 which makes a lovely portrait short-tele for not much money.

1:1 is 1:1 regardless of the sensor/film size it is projected onto. It will appear to be bigger on digital as you have the same size image taking up proportionately more of the capture area available.

There are other third party K mount versions but you're right about the Pentax ones being the best, and by some margin IMO.

Not on the K10D

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/rosslens.jpg[/IMG]

Lens in the photo is a Ross 196/8, but I often use a Schneider Componon 50/4 enlarging lens for macro work.

Mounted: Camera> M42 adapter> Asahi M42 bellows> 42-39mm step down ring> 39-25mm step down ring> Componon lens.

Makes for a very nice set-up and the M42 bellows gives me the flexibility to use all sorts of exotic optics

They are expressions used to describe the size of your subject on the camera's sensor.

For example; if you take a photo of an insect that is 10mm in length and the image of it takes up 10mm of the sensor (or film) then it is 1:1 - "life size" in other words.

If you take the same photo and the insect takes up 5mm of the sensor then the image is 1:2 (half life size).

If you take the same photo and the insect takes up 20mm of the sensor then the image is 2:1 (twice life size).

A true macro lens (such as the current Pentax 35mm, 50mm and 100mm versions) will focus to 1:1, however, marketing departments have decreed over the years that anything allowing you to focus closer than about 1:3 (a third of life size) be labelled as a "macro".

To get the larger-than-life magnifications (2:1 etc) you need additional focussing aids such as extension tubes or bellows. Once you get into magnifications of around 10:1 it ceases to be macro photography and becomes microscopy. If that floats your boat you'd be better off with a microscope and a camera adapter, foregoing camera lenses altogether.

One more thing, the longer the focal length of the macro lens the further away you can be from your subject and still achieve 1:1 magnification. This is why you would tend to use a 100mm macro lens for insects and nervous subject, whereas a 35mm macro lens is better suited to still life subjects such as flowers.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

From a personal perspective I certainly hope so - the crowds at last year's show made it near-impossible to actually see anything.

I don't recall Canon's stand last year being as big as Nikon's or Panasonic's. Certainly Nikon branding was everywhere as they're the main show sponsor - perhaps that's why Canon have pulled out? Didn't like folks carrying their brochures away in Nikon carrier bags..?

Maybe, but it's hard to imagine getting a bespoke one made up for less than the cost of a comparable lens that already happens to have a K-mount. Something like this has collector value and would be best used on an actual Leica (or not, apparently they were fairly rubbish so a life in a display cabinet beckons).