The main advantages of the DS models over the DL are a more sonphisticated matrix metering pattern and the use of a proper glass pentaprism finder instead of the cheaper penta-mirror. Otherwise, both cameras do pretty much the same job at the same quality level. There may well be other variations, but I think these are the main ones.

I don't get that extra info when I'm using A lenses on the *istDS, so I would presume there is no chip in the lenses.

This is a moot point - some might argue that the M lens is slightly better made, having less plastic in its construction. I think the optical cell is exactly the same so the quality should be the same, notwithstanding some variation from example to example.

I would use the A lens by preference if you are going to use it on modern film and digital SLRs. This is because it has the "A" setting needed for full compatibility.

The M lens will fit aesthetically and ergonomically with the M series bodies.

The LX is a seriously good camera and would be well worth renovating IMHO.

I too use NiMH batteries with no problem at all. I actually have three sets of 2300 mAh, but rarely have to change the first set when out for a day's shooting, even though the camera can be switched on for hours at a time.

If the batteries are well looked after (follow the instructions!) then they are perfectly efficient.

Why add a bulky grip to such a well designed camera?

I find this a little puzzling as I'm not sure why the batteries in the camera need enhancing. I may well be missing something, but I have three sets of 2300 mAh NIMH batteries, and even in the most protracted studio sessions rarely have to change to a new set.

However, I don't use the inbuilt flash at all, so maybe that is relevant to the need for more battery power?

I'm currently on the look out for various K series lenses and also a Pentax KM.

If anyone has anything to sell, or hears of anything being offered, I'd be much obliged to hear about it, by private message if you prefer.

Thanks!

To manufacture a 50mm f1.4 is more challenging than a F1.7, and the wider aperture may well have a downside in terms of some qualities.

As regards the pentax lenses, it's not so much a matter of sharpness, which is fine, but more that the f1.4 has different qualities. It has higher contrast and lower fine resolution, which reflects the probable final use for reportage and low light situations where the high contrast may be an advantage.

The f1.4 will also not have as flat a field and won't be as forgiving when used with extension tubes or converters. But it's not designed for these things, so the buyer can make a decision as to which properties will be the most important, and buy the lens to suit.

The trouble is that this sort of information is not supplied properly by any of the manufacturers, which is a pity because I for one would have saved a lot of expense over the years if it had!

It might be worth waiting to see how the new 12-24mm turns out?

The ES is notoriously unreliable and is probably better in a glass cabinet than in use.

The ESII is much better as a useable camera, and also has an extended number of manual shutter speeds. However, these are still very early electronic cameras and are not as inherently reliable as later models.

But without these models we would not have progressed onto the K2 and later electronic models. Everything has to start somewhere.

As a useable camera, I would stick to the Spotmatics if you want a screw-thread model.