The problem with that Stefan is that the information is quite old now, and digital cameras have much more dynamic range than 5 stops. Probably more like 9-12 stops, dependinmg upon the camera.

Like slide film, over-exposure kills the image with blown-out highlights, so be very careful about exposing "to the right" - most people find a touch of under-exposure can help quite a few images.

When we talk about exposing for film we need to differentiate between slide (positive) and print (negative) films. The former must never be over-exposed, the latter can take quite an amount of over-exposure.

The best option in all cases is to get the exposure spot on, but if the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the sensor or film, then sacrifices have to be made.

I'm not sure what information you need - just use it the same way you use your 50mm. If using longer focal lengths, always ensure the shutter speed is fast enough to avoid camera shake.

For example, a 50mm lens needs 1/50s (nearest is 1/60s)
A 200mm setting needs 1/200s (use 1/250s)

I wonder if she never used it because it was a Pentax K fit lens? If you look carefully, is it the same mount as on your 50mm lens? If so, it will be fine.

Minolta lenses are not for use on Pentax cameras, so if it is really a Minolta fit then leave it with the Minolta.

It is very subjective. It depends on what final effect you are after.

When I shot film, my favourite transparency film was Kodachrome 25. Not very helpful these days, so I make do with Velvia 50, but I don't like it much...too vivid.

As regards black and white I went for a different style with it and would use Kodak Tri-X ptrocessed in FX-39, sharp and gritty with very crisp grain structure. Don't forget the red filter to completet the effect!

I said above "I make do" which implies I still shoot film. I do in theory, but the Velvia sat in my MZ-3 has now been there for about four years and will probably be there till humankind is extinct.

It's important not to confuse the cheap East German Zeiss lenses, marked Carl Zeiss Jena originally, and their cheap Japanese licensed offshoots, with the Genuine Article.

West German Carl Zeiss lenses are expensive because of the high quality standards and the way they are manufactured. It is true that some lenses were designed by Zeiss and made in Japan to their specification.

The Pentax Limited lenses may be of the same order as these, but I haven't tested both side by side so I can only say may be.

But don't put a lens hood on in reverse and then leave it there....

I guess that the downside of all this, for all manufacturers, is that bad reviews of early samples could decimate sales.

That is, assuming that anyone actually reads all the web information in any significant numbers. If the I-10 or anything else appeared in the High Street at a ludicrous offer price, it would sell any number they cared to make, regardless of web reviews.

Interestingly, in terms of mainstream paper magazines, Pentax have been doing rather well lately, apart from AP of course.

For some reason AP seems to me to be institutionally anti-Pentax. Even the recent report on Pentax mulling over whether or not to release the 645D in the UK has a headline "Pentax Dithers...." whereas we go on to read that they have sent out their reps to see what the dealers think they could do with the 645D. Seems like a sensible approach to me, before committing to a major release.

Very curious, reading that review is like reading about a totally different camera.

I haven't seen a review, but I'm using one very successfully anyway!

As for prices, they have certainly tumbled.

Wolverhampton could be the one of choice. Try google for details.