Is this something to do with contrast being low?

Many lenses perform better with high contrast subjects, such as you are likely to find when the light is bright.

In theory the slides should be superior, but in reality next to digital projection they look very dull.

At ADAPS we tried running competitions that included real 35mm slides and also digital files projected, and the digital ones were brighter, clearer, more vibrant in every way.

Why? Probably because of the resolution and perception of the eye which sees a 72ppi image at several feet away as full of detail. As a print, viewed close, it would look awful.

It will be interesting to see what you think.

The original is full of subtle, gorgeous colour tones, so I prefer that one also.

Please remember this is Classified Ads, not a discussion section.

The K and A versions are optically identical.

There have been quite a few reports made about this as well, so apologies for the inconvenience, but clearly there has been some sort of glitch. Not everyone is affected as I certainly only received one copy, so whatever it is IT will sort out first thing on Monday.

Surprised there is so little or surprised there is so much?

No, I don't see any point to using a separate meter unless there is some specific purpose and the requirements are ultra critical.

I've moved this to a more appropriate section.

If it's reading the lens wrongly then the SR system won't be optimal either.

This sort of thing is one of the reasons for my "Pentax only" argument.

Good slide scanning is either expensive or, if done ourselves, both expensive and time consuming.

12 months ago I would have said TIFF, but things are moving along and I'd try JPEG as well and see what you think.

They are actually film inserts, not backs. The camera will only operate with a film inserted, or by using a special blank back that is for the purpose.