Maybe there's some variation between individual lenses, but we're getting cracking results from both of ours.

The old rules and expectations are being flouted daily by new lens designers. One reason is the smaller APS-C sized sensor, which is easier to design for in some respects. There are lots of other reasons - new glasses, aspheric elements, etc.

I've seen Sue's pics from her new 50-200 and it's just fine. Just use it and enjoy it. One thing is certain, it's a lot more convenient than the 45-125 on digital SLRs. I would expect it to be better as well as that lens is a very early zoom not at all designed with the requirements of digital sensors in mind.

We bought a Pentax 50-200 which Sue has been using on our recent trip to Suffolk. The results are excellent, and the lens handles beautifully as well.

Recommended.

Not really, not in my opinion anyway. Pentax viewfinders are pretty good, some of them exceptional.

Welcome, Nico.

As you liked your MZ-M I would suggest you go for the MZ3 which retains the design and adds many more features to it. I still use an MZ3 and have found it to be an excellent camera.

The film *ist is fine but only operates fully with the more recent lenses.

The MX is a classic, but you would need to buy carefully as there are now a lot of poorly used ones on the market. A nice MX would be a superb camera to have.

Hope that helps!

Using a spirit level is OK, but sometimes a technically straight photo can look as if it's leaning because of the picture content, and sometimes some parts look worse than others. Personally, I prefer to line things up by eye so that, overall, they look right.

A grid screen may be more useful. Indeed, this is something that can be switched on in some digital cameras.

We have never attempted to scan our old negatives and transparencies en masse as I'm sure it would be so time consuming and soul-destroying as to be an unbearable task. Worse than tidying out the attic....

The cheap film scanners I hear are less than zero efficiency (worse than useless) so perhaps one of the high quality Epson or similar scanners that will make a fair job out of 35mm and a good job out of 645 and larger?

Unfortunately cheap products are rarely cheap as they need replacing very quickly and end up costing more in the end.

We use the Nikon Coolscan IV, and it's not bad, but I don't think it's as good as a 6MP DSLR.

I think I would at least look at the Coolscan V.

Having taken the image so far, just for your consideration as an idea, how about adding some noise (grain) and some Diffuse Glow to simulate the effect of using Kodak High Speed Infrared film?

I find the digital IR is interesting as it is, but do often add the mentioned effects to increase the IR simulation.

It's very encouraging that we can have a robust debate on this forum without the need for us to over-moderate. I see a very different story on some others forums (fora?) with moderators getting very over-excited.....

However, here we are, and well done to all for keeping things civilised!

Now, will the 10.2MP Pentax start to redress the balance? Will Pentax become one of the big players again? After all, in the days of the Spotmatic the choice was between Pentax and Nikon, and both marques were readily available for hire from professional suppliers.

Canon's strength has been the ability to appeal, regardless of the actual design or quality, and IMHO it amounts to excellent marketing skills.

Pentax's marketing skills have been unfortunately lamentable, but the products themselves are superb, especially the lenses which will give Leica and Contax a run for their money.