Geoffrey Crawley has an interesting article in the new AP (out today for subscribers) and I thought his conclusions were worth putting up for discussion.

He says digital "sanitises the image, omitting some of the subtleties of analogue...but the result is a clear, well defined representation....at bigger enlargements the lower noise helps quality. For a lot of commercial, industrial and professional work, digital will win out." He also says "For those with a highly developed critical sense, film may remain preferable. It is clear that the top process is colour transparency"

As if to make the point, my slides fell through the letterbox at the same time, and very splendid they are. (Pentax MV, SMC Pentax-A 35-70mm f4). I'm going to run transparency film and digital together for the forseeable future. I like the gorgeous quality of slides, but I like the clean look of digital as well.

I would take a different approach, and on film would use the slowest film possible to ensure good, clean blacks. The moon is quite bright so in itself won't cause exposure problems. It is also relecting sunlight, so daylight film should be fine. The eclipse will be darker of course, but then so it should be. If you meter and brighten it up it won't be accurate.

The biggest problems I see are getting a large enough image on the film/CCD and getting a fast enough shutter speed to stop the moon in its tracks - it moves quite fast.

I've never done this seriously, so this is just how I would start, but before I did all this I would read a book on Astronomical Photography so I had some expert advice before I started.

Is the library still open?

The Foveon priciple seems logical, but don't forget that the actual pixel dimensions are quite small, one third of the 14MP quoted. The RGB layers are just superimposed, like film, rather than being side by side as in a standard Bayer array.

Of more concern is the limitation to using Sigma lenses only (which means I personally would not buy it) and the prospect of it being an expensive market faulure if it fails to catch the imagination.

Another small player is of course Fuji, but I would consider their wide dynamic range SuperCCD as it does have advantages for the portrait and landscape photographer. Also, being based on the Nikon D200, the new S5 Pro does have a tremendouse backup of fine Nikon lenses.

However, as we know, overall, the best logic lies with the Pentax K10D, with superb performance, lovely lenses and now a terrific price point as well.

Sounds like there's a real problem. Hope you have better luck with the next one.

They'll change their tune at the camera club when you show them some stunning results!

You didn't nudge the playback or delete buttons by mistake did you? You won't get an image on the back screen unless you are in playback, or during the brief review mode after you have taken a shot.

Did you format the SD card in the camera before you started taking pictures?

Try pressing MENU to check that something does actually appear on the screen and the camera is alive.

It's possible that you have a rogue battery. Every item manufactrured by mankind has the potential to fail, and I'm afraid you've just probably been very unlucky. Of course being very unlucky in front of all those people will take a long time to live down.....

Sue and I got our K10D cameras quite early on, and we charged the batteries fully before use, and so far we haven't had to charge them again. That is a long time and quite a bit of use later, so I don't think you should expect to have a problem with batteries.

Hope the new battery resolves the issue and it's not a camera problem.

I think the CRT has the advantage. Many of the flat screens I have seen are far too contrasty, positively vicious on the eyes.

We use 19" CRT monitors. Bulky but superb quality. One is iiyama and the other Fujitsu Siemens.

A spurious crescent moon could be a reflection within the lens due to flare. If that's the case only very careful changes in viewpoint could have any hope of eliminating it.

The moon moves very quickly, so subject movement can reduce sharpness. Also, as neil says, atmospheric conditions can cause major problems.

The best place for astronomical photography will be out in deserted areas where there is no light pollution from the city.

The Isle of Arran would be good, and probably lots of other places in Scotland as well.

The AF140C works fine in manual, and to be honest at those distances the exposure is pretty predictable anyway, especially with the instant review of digital.