My Latin teacher would be turning in his grave, the one I probably helped send him to.

I believe my progress in Latin was described as abysmal. At the time I had to look up abysmal, but I have improved since then.

I couldn't get the link to work - it came up as an invalid page.

A can of worms indeed!

I have heard people saying lots of good things about Macs and also about Linux and various other alternatives. At one time I used Netscape...

At the moment I am also using Firefox 2, which has solved some glitches on a couple of websites.

The thing is really I'm not as much interested in the computing per se rather more what it does for me. The simpler and faster it does it the better.

I presume on a Mac you have far less problems with viruses? (Virii?)

Yes, I understand that, but as a concept I think it's brilliant and has and is incredibly useful to me.

In fact I feel pretty OK with Microsoft as well, without whom we would not have the absolute compatibility of our computer systems and the ability to even discuss this as we are doing now.

I have a feeling that things go so far in many fields and then there seems to be a braking effect as the success is dismantled, basically because it's become too successful. A sort of self-limiting social system.

Any sociologists out there to give some insight into that?

:

I really find it difficult to feel disgruntled about eBay because it has single-handedly created a new form of buying and selling that has opened up a market to everyone.

I have sold lots of unwanted items that otherwise I would have had to be messing about with classified ads and all the delay that involves.

I have bought long-sought-after items that would otherwise have probably never been found.

As it is, you sell or you bid and seven days later pay or get paid via PayPal. Done and dusted, only the fees to come out of it.

What's to grumble about?

Interesting, but the trouble is what's the alternative?

:

Just to add another thought, it's not only wide angle lenses that are used for landscape photography. Distant mountain scenes, for example, can look very disappointing with a wide angle.

Moderate telephoto lenses have a place and the 50-200mm is inexpensive and excellent. We have been very happy with both of ours.

It's a good question. The 16-45mm f4 is already a very fine lens and the 16-50mm f2.8 will need to be equally good to make the extra money worthwhile. The extra stop does make it more expensive to make, more bulky, but offers a brighter viewing image and a slightly better low-light capability.

These days f2.8 is considered to be quite a fast lens, and in zoom terms it is.

I already have the 16-45mm and don't feel the need for a bulkier faster lens.

As your interest is landscapes I would think you might be better saving the cash and putting it towards somethings else. Another lens perhaps....

I'll check the manual properly later, but why not use manual focusing in these circumstances. This is what the manual recommends on Page 65.

A good SMC Pentax-A 35-70mm f4 is always worth having.

But these too can be rather loose is well worn. There are some good ones about and the quality is excellent, continuously focusing down to 1:4 magnification at the 70mm end.

It's only in the digital thread because someone started it there. There is no significance to that and all pictures from any analog or digital origin are welcome.

In one way though to actually appear on the forum at all, and image has had to become a digital one, so I never even thought to make a distinction. Very few rules keep life simple.

Hope that clears it up!