I've now put the suggestion forward for you.

I think it's a moot point as well, so I'll suggest the change if there's a sense of consensus about it. It might help to clarify where such posts are and make them easier to find.

Now there are actually meetings taking place it's worth making it clearer?

I think before we disappear off at a tangent I'd say that what you have read is a normal statement of fact - that is, Pentax User is not part of Pentax. Pentax User is part of eMagezine Publishing, the same as ePHOTOzine is.

As I recall Pentax Club has always been independent and was originally run by Peter Cox Associates, who were not connected with Pentax either.

Likewise, many years ago I was the Chairman of the Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons Appreciateion Society, which had no connection whatsoever with The Four Seasons Partnership, but which was recognised and approved by them.

Unless I am missing the point being made about "official" it isn't unusual to be officially approved but unconnected.

Thanks Derek.

Just looking at the ads I can see now they are headed by a title "Ads by Google" and the only official supplier I can see is the "Official Shop Partner" which is clearly labelled and is of course SRS. They earned that position in I would think many people's eyes by offering such good service before they became "official"....

I can't see any of the other ads marked "site sponsor" so I'm not sure what you are looking at. I think we all get different things depending on what and where we surf the net.

If you rewind about 35 years you should have heard what some people were saying about the trusted sellers that we now all use. They challenged the market place then and brought prices right down.

Before then, "Discount, oh no, when we sell a product to a customer we feel as though we are entering into a long term relationship that does not finish with just a sale. We won't stoop to discounting, we'd rather not sell." Real quote combining two suppliers. Where are these suppliers now? Gone. They didn't sell enough.

Where are the "evil discounters" of yore - thriving and offering better service than the high and mightly ever did....

I wouldn't write off Simply Electronics or anybody else. I've bought from them and saved myself over £100 on the price of one lens. Just use normal care and caution when buying off the web.

Many thanks for the expamded info George.

So far I haven't found any really bad examples of film lenses being no good for digital, although for very critical work some of the new digital series do have the edge. That's only subjective though and I'm not sure than anyone has done a really scientific evaluation of the best film lenses versus the best digital ones.

It might be interesting.

DA lenses are for digital and most have reduced image circles, so will vignette to a greater or lesser degree on film.

FA and F lenses are fully useable on digital, some will perform adequately but others will be superb. This depends on whether the original lens design produces an image that is sympathetic to the needs of the digital sensor design.

However, all are worth a try, sometimes at very low prices indeed.

I'm using an SMC Pentax-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro that is excellent on digital or film, for example.

Interestingly, other marques that use in-lens shake reduction also recommend switching it off when using a tripod.

There may be something in it - it just hasn't been explained fully.

No problem, my misreading no doubt!

The Earth moves quite quickly, so we are probably looking at star trails. Try similar exposures on the moon and see how far it moves as a comparison. That should clinch it.

Also don't forget the possibility of meteor and meteorite trails.