There are others who can go into more detail regarding RAW capture than I can, but for myself I have only used the best quality of JPEG. The results up to A3 are, I think, superb and I can't find any reasons for using RAW and suffering the inconvenience that causes. But then I am, arguably, a very lazy photographer constantly looking for simple solutions!

Exposure I do not find a problem with the *istDS, so there is nothing to rescue (one of the arguments for using RAW).

I find I am using less USM as time goes by, and in general I now use no more than 50%. It is possible to sharpen more for specific effects, especially when just sharpening the Lightness channel in Lab Colour.

A TIFF saves all the information in the file with no loss, so whatever you produce either via RAW or JPEG will be preserved. In theory, the RAW file will provide a superior result, but the downside is more processing of the images and far fewer pictures to each SD card. Also JPEGs can be handled by any computer, anywhere.

With quite a few digital cameras, it is necessary to lock the focus with a half pressure on the release button before completing the action to take the picture. "Snatching" at the exposure often results in poor focus. This is especially true of compact digital cameras and many "SLR style" such as the Fuji S7000 and similar.

DSLRs are not so prone to this, and react quite quickly.

Have you tried formatting the card in the camera?

Some of the lenses and cameras mentioned are now thirty years old, so I think it's reasonable that spares are getting thin on the ground.

I'm sure that Voigtlander don't support the Bessamatic SLRs, but new parts can still be fitted by a few specialists. It's the same for older Pentaxes. Most things can be repaired, subject to parts being available.

Don't know about that, but I can tell you that it works just fine with studio flash.

In the 1970s "Photo Technique" constantly argued for the introduction of A sizes in photo papers, arguing that they would fit the sizes used in magazine production. Now we have A4 paper, do we feel any better off? Not really...

I think it's all in the mind - who is to say that any given picture will compositionally fit any one size of CCd or paper any better than any other as a routine thing? Why would all my pictures be in a 4:3 ratio? Or any other ratio?

Actually, I just adjust the picture size to suit my composition, and then print it on a piece of paper which invariably has to be trimmed to shape. I quite like square prints, panoramic prints, all sorts of shapes of prints, depending entirely on what fits the subject matter.

For those who can only get 6x4 prints, a pair of scissors can be very handy!

I bought a 750Z to be a discrete camera that I could take to any occasion without needing a bulky bag.

The quality is excellent, outresolving my *istDS but with slightly more noise, and the exposures have been fine. The histograms look good in Photoshop, and a liitle adjustment only brings the pictures nicely to life.

Close up capability is quite amazing, focusing down to around a couple of centimetres.

Very impressed!

Taking point 4: If you use a card reader you can get at one picture if you want to, or you could transfer all the pictures to the PC in a fraction of the time you indicate.

I do have a 750Z, but I haven't found any need to create additional folders. This would, if it is possible at all, use more space than just having the one folder.

The folder of course relates to the camera in use, and if you were to use a different camera with the same card a second folder would be generated anyway. This, too, does not use the card in the most efficient way.

Personally, I would think about going the card reader route.

There are plenty of Pentax M series cameras available at low prices and in excellent condition.

Otherwise, many of the AF bodies will work just fine with your lenses, and I would especially suggest the MZ5 and MZ3 models.

The digital lens only covers the size of the CCD, so in theory it will mean dark (vignetted) corners on your film camera. In fact, it might not be too bad, so the best thing is to give it a try and see if you like the results. The lens hood may not be useable, though.

There is no mechanical reason not to fit the lens to your film camera.