It is indeed suspicious when people don't know what they are selling, but to be fair it is also possible to be given things and not be too sure of the fine detail of them.

For example, I've recently listed some medals on eBay. I've had them for years, know exactly who and where they were awarded but have no idea what they actually are. Well I know now, thanks to the information flowing in from those who do know, and there are lots of helpful ebayers out there willing to help.

So keep an open mind, but do of course be careful out there!

The PEF files from different models are slightly different and do need upgrades to RAW software to handle them. You can already see the mounting problem for the future, unless of course Adobe's DNG format becomes the norm. But what if it doesn't?

Personally I am far happier for all sorts of reasons to stick with the best quality JPEG. Then all these problems just don't exist and future compatibility is more assured. Not 100% certain, but much more certain than with all these RAW files.

Love the third one!

Just to complicate matters, there are different types of fisheye projection as well. Nikon have made various different types for various scientific applications.

Does anyone know what type of projection the Pentax fisheyes use?

In terms of value, as a start the Jessops offer seems pretty good.

I started with the 18-55, and it's a great lens once stopped down a couple of stops. I have now replaced it with the 16-45 to get a slightly wider angle, but that hasn't stopped me ordering a 12-24 as well.

The cost of the 18-55 in a kit is so low you might as well have it regardless, and indeed you can always sell it if you wish to.

Whatever you do, there may be no totally efficient buying plan that will eliminate any overlap. First and foremost I would think very carefully about your style of photography, analyse the pictures you take and buy your lenses to fit in with that profile.

It's now been pretty widely reported and the pentax japan website lists all the discontinued models. The use of lead solder in circuit boards is the problem, apparently because it could be dangerous when the cameras are thrown away....That's the EU for you.

The 67 and 645 are both victims, but the new 645 Digital goes ahead as planned.

If you have a look in your latest copy of Pentax User magazine there is a half page advertisment for the full day seminar I will be presenting on Saturday 3rd June.

The programme is detailed in the magazine, although there will be plenty of opportunity to explore any particular points that anyone may have.

I will be presenting some of the parts, aided by Sue Riley, who is a superb digital photographer, Paul Jones who specialises in portraiture and has had quite a bit of publication success with his glamour photography. There will also be our model Maxine on hand for the practical studio shoot, so plenty of chances to experiment with lighting and poses. Incidentally, the model in the advert is not Maxine, but anyone who has a copy of Pentax User with my article on Rembrandt Lighting will soon recognise her.

If anyone has any questions before booking a place, please ask here or contact me directly using the numbers or e-mail address in the advert.

The location will be the ADAPS Clubroom near Manchester, and the number limited to 12 so everyone will get proper attention. The cost £45. Maybe see you there?

With the advent of digital photography, some problems have reduced and others have increased in importance. For example, the need to spot prints to remove blemishes has now gone (thank goodness for that) but Chromatic Abberation has taken on a more important status.

CA is basically where the colours projected by the lens onto the sensor do not all focus at the same point, caausing fringing. This wasn't much of a problem with film until longer telephotos were used, hence the introduction of low dispersion glasses. With CCDs we get CA even with ultrawides, and this may be due to the design limitations set by the sensor. It needs parallel rays of light ideally and this is called telecentric design when applied to lenses.

I have seen CA in practically all lenses some of the time, not always, but the more expensive lenses are really pretty good. The 16-45 is excellent in this respect, but not totally free from the phenomenon.

The cure? Software can re-align the colours and CS2 has the means to do this. You can also shift the position of individual channels in PS7 to reduce the effect.

Or you can clone out along edges. Sue does this sometimes, and totally removes CA, but her patience is much greater than mine.

Sorry if this is too obvious, but with manual focus you turn the focusing ring until the image looks sharp in the viewfinder...All these electronic add-ons are not helping this process....

In reasonable light I don't have a problem seeing the point of focus, although I do acknowledge that not everyone has eyesight that allows them to do that.

Fair comment.