Does anyone have a Pentax ring flash that they no longer require?

:

I have to tell you that we have lots of lenses and we change them, but always in a dust free area (as far as possible and always quickly and carefully.

I find it quite surprising that we all have such widely different experiences of this. But we do, so I guess that's just the way of things!

If dust is going to fall on the sensor, then whether the camera's a week or a year old fall it will. However, with our *istDS bodies we were very lucky and never had to clean the sensors.

If it annoys you, why not try the blower brush method. But first I would set the camera to perform dust removal at every start up for a while and then see if the dust is eventually dislodged.

A polarising filter will kill the reflections, but it might kill the atmosphere of the shot as well, if overdone. If you polarise completely, then something interesting needs to be under the water!

It is in sensible and successful companies. It is especially important to do this whilst maintaining a high level of Customer satisfaction, otherwise one only gets one sale per customer, ever.

The merest hint of a thought never crossed my mind....

Yes, I missed it too. At that price I'd think about what I wanted it for after I'd bought it!

I was looking at websites last night and was surprised to find that Samsung DSLRs seem to have been taken off the Jessops and Tecno websites.

Coupled with the amazingly low prices for these being reported, it all looks very odd.

Has anyone any idea what is going on?

It could be, but you still have to post process JPEG files, so I'm not sure that it makes much difference from that point of view.

The reasons I choose to mainly shoot JPEG are the total compatibility over time (I have no support issues with my JPEG files of any age), the reuced demand on storage space, a slight preference for the "look" of a JPEG (just like I prefer Tri-X to HP5) and having no issues with exposure technique (I can get 36/36 spot on exposures with a slide film, so there's no problem with digital).

As you say, George, this has nothing to do with sharpness, which we all expect to be spot on. If it's not, then the technique must be the first place to look.

The 18-55mm is fully capable of producing superb A3 prints and is very sharp when stopped down. Perhaps use f8 - f16 for best results. Sue and I have put lots of A3 prints into competitions using this lens.

Having said that, the 16-45mm is indeed better, but it is not something that leaps out at you unless you can compare large prints side by side, closely and critically.

Taken viewed in isolation, no-one would think that the 18-55mm is not sharp. With good photographic technique it is excellent.