Absolute wisdom. If in doubt, read the instructions!

A bit harsh, Peter?

The Samsung GX10 is of interest in that it is indeed a Pentax K10D and any minor differences surely have to be of interest. If those differences were significantly in favour of the GX10 then why wouldn't we buy it in preference? However, the differences are minimal and the Pentax name and backup will ensure a longer useful life and better eventual trade-in, probably. So individuals will decide whether the Pentax branding and infrastructure is worth a little extra.

I think it is, and I certainly wouldn't be buying a DSLR from a High Street catalogue shop anyway. The Samsung does seem to be more obvious in non-photographic supply chains.

Agreed that a lot of sharpening is overdone and looks it, sometimes leaving dreadful haloes around objects and giving a very artificial look. Having said that, sometimes I like to emulate that very sharp, grainy look that was popular amongst particularly east Eusropean photographers on the 1960s and 1970s. This is easy with digital.

In general though, we sharpen much less than we did at first.

Just a little tip - sharpening should always be the last step in the process, otherwise you are manipulating a sharpened image and this will introduce more artifacts into your image.

I can thoroughly recommend the K10D which offers more detailed, smoother shots than the *istDS.

It is, of course, a personal choice.

In terms of cost, in the long run the film route is very expensive.

What do you think you will do?

How about considering the MZ5, MZ5n, MZ3 series of cameras, which offer AF but you don't have to use it. They have a full range of modes, built in winder, conventional shutter speed dial, compatibility with all lenses. I use an MZ3 very happoly, and it's bar graph manual exposure readout is excellent.

The Super A series are also a good choice, but much older, so careful buying is needed.

I use CS2 sometimes, but actually prefer PS7 in many ways and tend to use that if I don't need the newer features of CS2.

There's a temptation to think we must upgrade, but it's not necessary most of the time.

It gives a circular image 24mm in diameter, with an angle of view of 180 degrees. Just draw it on a piece of paper and then draw in the APS-C size on top of it.

It was apparently not a particularly impressive lens and I would expect it to be even less so on digital.

If you want to see a really sharp orint have a look at some of the 20" x 16" monochrome prints from the 1930s and 1940s that we have in our ADAPS archive. They are stunning.

In the context of digital, sharpness is not the problem, it's more to do with tonal quality and gradation. A3 prints can be so sharp they could be dangerous to hold without gloves...

Nobody seems to be taking this one up, but I will say that there was a time when I used prime lenses exclusively. Now zooms are the norm. The requirements for the print size have remained the same, in fact my digital prints are slightly larger than my darkroom ones.

How things have changed in such a short time.