I know Kris, but I felt it was probably inappropriate to republish them properly without permission, so I'm using them in an editorial way. Bits can be glimpsed I'm sure, but they are not easily read. These are scans from my copies of the magazines.

I always found that PT made thoughtful and informed reviews. Not all magazines did.

In one way, some birds are so small and skittish that no lens will ever be long enough. The secret lies in understanding their behaviour and siting the camera accordingly. I know that some Kingfisher photographers use 100mm macro lenses - they site a hide about 10 feet from a spot, two people go in, one comes out (birds can't count) and then the photographer waits for the subject to arrive. All this has more to do with planning than having a long lens.

Starting with a 55-300mm lens, or similar, won't be very expensive and will be a reasonable start. later, if you still want a longer lens then you'll have a better understanding of what you need. Don't forget small aperture telephotos will need a lot of light, or a high ISO, to ensure a fast enough shutter speed to arrest subject movement.

June 1977 saw the introduction of the other initial M series camera, the incredible MX. I probably used one of these more than any other camera at the time.

Yes, and it works just fine. Sue uses this all the time for her birding shots and gets good results.

Sounds great, looks great, what could be better than a photo walk plus bacon!

I like the shot.

C41 black and white film isn't as crisp as silver-rich conventional emulsions. Ideally this one could have used Ilford Pan F (ISO 50) or, even better, Kodak Panatomic-X (ISO 32).

The obvious choice for me would be to use the Pentax 55-300mm. Slightly longer, but much lighter as well. Couple that with the Pentax 1.4x converter and it makes an effective package with little weight.

A tricky but very valid question from sportyman531....

That depends on the image content, the degree of enlargement and the viewer's visual acuity. It's very true that at normal viewing distances the requirements for sharpness and fine detail are not as high as when our favourite competition judge picks up the magnifying glass (metaphorically speaking) and checks whether or not our images are sharp. At that point reminding him/her that it's actually a soft focus portrait won't help at all.

So the answer is probably the same as the answer to how long is a piece of string.

Viewing at 100% on an IPS monitor then yes we will see a difference. This might translate well onto a high quality magazine double spread. Yes, we may well see a difference. In a gallery on a wall, debatable.

Pentax seem to have been on a bit of a roll in the 1970s. SMC coating, new Spotmatics, electronic ES models, a new bayonet mount and a complete release of bayonet lenses. Then, in May 1977 we find a double spread advert plus a very nice review.

Since the K-5 IIs many camera makers have also taken this on board and today the lack of the AA filter is quite normal. It does have benefits, but the essence of sharpness and resolution needs to be understood.

For example, a Panatomic-X negative film (ISO 32) will show the same detail as a Tri-X one (ISO 400) but the slower film shows it with the individual details rendered more crisply. It's not a perfect analogy, but the K-5 needs more sharpening than the K-5 IIs and files from the latter are indeed visibly sharper. There is still a limitation on this with the 16MP sensor.

The same is true of the pixel shift technology. It renders the detail visibly more crisply, but does require that we work very carefully to get the best advantage from it.

It is accepted by most publications that removing the AA filter increases the crispness of images, and manufacturers have moved in that direction.