Hey everyone.

I'm going to be taking the trans-Siberian in August travelling through Russia, Mongolia and China over an 8 week period. I've never been away for this long before and am thinking I should buy a tablet to do back-ups whilst under away. Also I will have quite a bit of time on my hands, so I would like to watch films, check email etc...

A few years ago I lugged an old laptop around Thailand and it got too much, plus the battery life was terrible! I would prefer something thin and light, hence why a tablet would be preferable. Also, it'll probably get thrown around in my back-pack, so I would not want to take something too expensive such as a Surface 3.

I am interested to hear what people are using in these situations.

My thoughts:
Ipad: loads of apps, decent battery life, pig to get files on to and off it, expensive (for 64/128GB)
Android tablets: decent apps, good battery life, can use OTG cables, but which one exactly??
Windows tablets: terrible app selection (for modern apps), battery life not as great as the other 2, great support for reading and writing to a variety of media, loads of desktop apps (LR, PS etc... but am I going to be using that on an 8 - 10" display??)

Thanks!

Read more: http://forums.thedigitalfix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632933#ixzz3eU1gy0S6

This would be my guess. Although some of these DA* lenses are pretty old now, how long does a lens design last on average? - might it possible that a full-on re-deisgn is in the works.

I am wondering whether to go for the 200, 300, or 60-250. I would only use it occassionally, so maybe the 55-300 WR would be a better pick @ 220GBP.

Hi all,

This deal surfaced about a month ago at Amazon for ~£250... I hesitated as I wasn't sure about the silver and missed out (it then promptly shot back up to > £350).

However on Saturday it dropped again to £240, yesterday it hit £230, and today £220... (it makes you wonder if waiting till tomorrow will yield further discounts)

Only available in silver for this price:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00EZJPU2K/ref=sr_ph?ie=UTF8&qid=1410190828&sr=1&keywords=da+40+limited

The beauty of the deal this time is that Amazon are also offering £30 credit as well, which is as good as cashback IMO. This credit needs to be used by the end of the year, but with Christmas coming I can't imagine anyone having any problems

At less than £200 I couldn't resist anymore

Thoughts appreciated re: size and walkaroundability

Am wondering the same thing: go for the Pentax 60 - 250 or a Tamron 70 - 200. I haven't yet handled the Pentax, but I had a go with the Tamron in a local store and this thing is huge! Don't owners find that somewhat limiting? - could I even use that in a walk around situation I see the Pentax is a bit shorter and lighter.

BTW, the Tamron is currently €517 here on Amazon.de a superb price. Pentax I'd be looking at about double I guess.

PM sent

PM sent.

It was more of a generalisation, since I was shocked at the retail prices. Shall I go through and list all of those which are cheaper at other places?

£329 for a 50-200 WR anyone?? Even with the 20% off that's over £60 more than Amazon.

Oh and I generally check Amazon.de, where the 50-135 can be had for €924 at the mo, well under a £100 cheaper than in this offer.

I guess Ricoh must have bumped the prices again recently...

Site is back up now. Prices are absolutely laughable IMO though, that's with the 20% off too. Cheaper at SRS and Amazon IMO.

Yes the offer ended last night. They had stock earlier in the week, last night it was down to "1 to 3 months" with Amazon. I did consider the K5 II body, which was ~20 quid cheaper, but as mentioned above, when you check the Pentax T&Cs, the body only was not mentioned.

Well that goes without saying... maybe I wasn't clear. I was more thinking products in the middle of the range, i.e. whether there have been any leaks of a K5 III or something, or a cheaper replacement. K3 is too much for me at the mo.

How much do people need functionality wise? I would find my K10d fine if the focussing was still accurate and the low light performance was any good.