Good question Stefan, and of course we don't have a result for a DA lens yet either.

It would be ironic if it were to be spot on with the kit lens...which is possible because other photographers don't have a problem. I wonder what lenses they use?

EDIT: It will be interesting to see thew results from the 50-135mm. Come on Smeggypants, it's only coming up to mignight!

Interesting. What I would do with this is to use QuickShift to make the slight adjustment in these circumstances. Of course this is only possible with DA lenses, but for those who do use those lenses it would solve the problem.

A final test with a DA lens would be interesting to see if thesre is also a problem there.

However, in real world photography it will dpend on what a photographer shoots as to whether it's a problem at all, or not. In the photography I do I would never come across this as an issue.

Comparisons are really difficult with DSLRs because the result depends so much on how the camera is set up. There's the default settings as supplied, but apart from that all of them can be altered to taste quite extensively.

So should each one be fine tuned, and to what standards? Even the RAW output from each will be different.

Sigma reverse-engineer their lenses, which can cause problems, so I'd be interested in seeing your test results with one of your Pentax lenses.

You do keep saying it, but you don't add that it's equally true of the MZ10 and the MZ5 and MZ3. The MZ6 and 7 do allow aperture control from the body though.

Our last two film cameras are the MZ3 and the *ist.

No operational or quality problems with either of them.

To add something to that, whatever we can do with photography, there's usually someone else who can do it better.

A friend of mine spent his working life making about 300 black and white prints a day, every day. He became very, very good.

Then I saw someone else's black and white prints and they were so much better again it was astonishing.

I really wish it was possible for all the PU members to see and be able to appreciate the prints I saw. They were 20" x 24" and of mundane subjects, but they absolutely sang off the paper with quality. Rich, deep blacks and a full range of tones through to transparent but not washed out, delicate highlights. Wonderful.

I can tell the difference.

I've not checked the figures, but let's say that if a print size of 16"x12" was acceptable from 35mm film (it is) then a similar quality from medium format might be 24" square.

Conversely, if 16"x12" prints were made from both, the medium format one would allow much closer scrutiny and retainm quality.

No need to take my word for it, just go and look at some good exhibition prints. The best medium format will be staggeringly good. If you don't say, "Wow!" when looking at them, they're not up to scratch.

The medium format quality will be better and they are worth the money if they are what you need.

The MZ5 and MZ3 variants are a different stle to the rest of the range, having conventional shutter speed dials. They also have full function KAF2 mounts.