85mm was the standard "portrait" focal length for all the film years of 35mm film.

Vericolor S in 35mm ans 120 was the staple diet of portrait and wedding photographers for several decades, because of its low contrast and ability to render dark suits and white dresses at the same time.

By the end of the 1960s even high quality magazines were switching to 35mm, and one of the men's magazines actually insisted on 35mm Kodachrome. I wouldn't know which one, of course.

It is of course quite true that wedding photographers were relatively slow to move away from 6x6cm.

The photos are great, but the response to slide shows always seems to be the same, people generally don't like them. They don't want to wait patiently but would rather just click on something and go straight to it.

I found the slide shows too slow and I would prefer just to click "Next" when I want to move on.

But, the images are great and nothing else should distract from them.

My Grandfather always said, and I mean at every opportunity as some Grandfathers do, "A bad workman always blames his tools."

That's the same as Andy Rouse is saying, but possibly blunter!

It's worth mentioning that I now know of two D300 users who upgraded from the D200 and are both less than happy.

As for the k10D, you are missing something Mike-P because the K20D is a much better camera.

It's always worth a look at Amazon - I found a 43mm for £250 there once.

It's a bit odd that so many if them appear to be making buying choices based on very dubious tests done by others whose skill level is totally unknown.

The professional Pentax lenses have actually always been slightly more expensive than the Nikon equivalents, certainly according to my 1970s and 1980s magazine advertisments. Not by much, but for example a 70-200mm f2.8 would be more than the Nikon.

The current price makes it a bit more than the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I suspect may mean that continued demand has meant a new batch has been manufactured. Unfortunately this may have been with older, more expensive technology and also on a relatively limited basis, so the cost has been much higher.

Couple that to our dismal currency and you have all the ingredients for a very nasty price shock.

So, we exercise our freedom of choice and either want it and buy it at that price, or not.

It was a way to reflect Mark as a personality. The sequence was shot with this sort of end result in mind, although in the end simple was better and I only used two out of about seven shots. The full sequence shows Mark walking towards us down the centre line of the empty swimming pool.

The space and grid effect amount to Mark's world and the path he chose for himself was right down the middle - he literally walked down the lines. So he defined his own position as he walked into the scene.

I'm waiting to hear his reaction to the shot.

Whilst we were at Victoria Baths I borrowed one of our ADAPS members for a few shots. This is my (unconventional) portrait of Mr Mark Culshaw:
[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff250/johnriley1uk/018-Mark-800.jpg[/IMG]

The Pentax 18-250mm is a very good lens and you should still be able to find it new.

The alternative might be the Tamron 18-270mm, which, for what it is, fared very well in the current AP test.