We can't guess what the future holds with 100% certainty, but the way it's looking is that the investment is going into APS sized sensors and lenses. We could wait forever, or we could buy into the system now and have a lot of good value out of the present technology.

I realise it can be difficult to know when to jump in, but the prices have never been better, and the results achievable are fantastic just as things are now. I am tempted to say "What are you waiting for?" as it may never happen, and you could still be waiting in five years time.

I don't think there will be a full frame Pentax DSLR in the forseeable future, but I could be proved wrong.....It's just not where the main market is.

AF lenses can feel less substantial than the very fine manual focus range, but the reults are up to par and they seem to be made well enough. Albeit in different materials.

It does take some getting used to.

I keep missing the Window of opportunity!

C'est la vie....

I'd have to buy an E-1 first, and I spend enough as it is....

I'm still saving up for that 12-24mm Pentax lens!

Yes, but they all do work, and the technology allows for it.

I've just read the AP review of the new Olympus adapter to allow OM lenses to be used on the new 4/3 system Olympus DSLRs. And what a lot of restrictions on the useable apertures, both because of performance issues and because of potential metering errors.

Compare that to pentax where any lens from the A series onwars just fits and is fully useable. Pre-A bayonet lenses can be used in Aperture priority and manual modes and still need no adapter. Even screw thread lenses can be used utilising the incredibly simple Pentax K adapter for less than £15 outlay.

The OM adapter costs £100 and allows only limited functionality.

So, I reckon Pentax beats Olympus and very convincingly too. Full marks to the Pentax Engineers and to the inspired design of the K mount!

Quad is an interesting choice to discuss, as it has parallels with old discussions on the relative merits of German as opposed to Japanese lenses.

The Quad part is that if you look at the paper specifications for their equipment, such as distortion levels, etc., then they do not look very good compared with the latest Japanese stufff. But they sound better....One of the reasons being that it's as important to have the right sorts of ditortion controlled well, and other types the ear will be happy with, so the overall figure is not the all embracing answer.

In lenses, the old argument is resolution and sharpness (Nikon, Canon) as opposed to pictorilal quality and subtelty (Leica, Zeiss). You will notice I have left Pentax out of that as i think Pentax lenses can and do show some of both qualities, depending on the lens.

These days we talk of "bokeh" (wherever did that one come from?) but this is really pictorial quality, so maybe things are changing yet again.

So my lens resolves only 88lpmm and yours manages 96lpmm? Maybe it doesn't matter as much as we think.

And though I have been inspired by George's quote, given above, please don't think this post was directed at him, it was just a general musing as I sit here waiting for the onslaught of New Year!

Sue and I help to run ADAPS (Atherton & District Amateur Photographic Society) and full details of our location and programme can be found at www.adaps.org.uk

The reference to viewing distance refers to prints. We view a 6" x 4" print relatively close, but to get the same effect on an A3 we should move the print further away.

To understand why, imagine a 15mm ultra-wide angle shot (in 35mm terms) and view it at say 3" distance. Looks like an ultra-wide. Now view the A3 print from a similar distance, and suddenly the perspective will look normal, no longer showing the same wide angle "distortion".

Try it and see, it's quite amazing. And the reason is that lenses do not change perspective, only viewpoint does. The viewing distance of the print, related to its size, is equally relevant. This is why Rolleiflex portraits seem to loom out at you, it's because of a relatively wide angle lens being used and a relatively long viewing distance.

By all means let me have your views when you have had time to assess the images.

I would go further and suggest that the *istDs is good for prints at A3 as well as A4. Don't forget that the correct viewing distance for an A3 print would be double that for an A4 to get the same effect.

Viewing distance is actually a very important aspect of print presentation, but that is for another thread I think.

You can judge whether or not my pictures are sharp by looking at my A3 prints, for which a visit to ADAPS on a competition night would be needed, or by visiting ePHOTOzine and looking at my portfolio under the name johnriley1uk By all means let me know what you think, be it positive or negative, all comments are always welcomed.

The point about sharpening is that it has to happen, be it in camera or in Photoshop, and the processing power in Photoshop is very much greater. So in camera sharpening is relatively primitive and will give rise to artifacts, whereas proper handling in Photoshop will give much superior results. This is why we are pleased that Pentax do not over-sharpen the in-camera images. For the more casual user, they will find the compact digital cameras (Pentax included) will be more aggressively sharpened in camera and more nearly ready for printing.

No, I don't know of anyone who has performed what I would consider to be a full and proper test. Magazines these days are relatively trivial in their approach and only summarise and simplify. A real test would be the purview of the lens designers themselves. Practical tests will reveal to the individual user whether or not a product fulfills their own particular requirements. Theese sort of tests we can all do ourselves with a bit of thought and some careful and consistent technique. Might be a good subject for an article.

The sort of tests I have done have scratched the surface of the subject, and have usually been to prove a point in a presentation of some sort. Or more to establish a point really, as I don't have any axe to grind one way or another.....

Hope that is helpful, please let us know what you think of the EPZ pictures.