The Pentax *istDS has a function that enables files to be saved as monochrome (black and white) or sepia. The original colour file remains. Hopefully an *istD user will tell us if the same is possible.

It is probably better to convert the file to monochrome in Photoshop, and my preference for this is using Channel Mixer, which enables the colour channels to be mixed to emulate the use of colour filters. So, to bring out blue skies a red filter effect is produced, and so on.

You can also use Channels and save just one channel as a black and white image, you can desaturate and you can Greyscale the image as well. So there are many routes to black and white, some offering better control than others.

It's called vignetting.

28-200mm is a huge zoom range, so expect good sharpness but poor drawing (high distortion), modest maximum apertures, not a particularly close focus, very expensive large filter sizes.

I would expect much better performance out of more modest designs.

You can buy a Beattie Intensiscreen for the MX, new, from Morco I think. The last time I checked the price it was £117.50. This gives a much brighter image, maybe up to 4 stops advantage, but I presume this will also change the metering as the meter measures the brightness of the ground glass screen.

This is a really tough question, because one of the beauties of b/w film is that you can choose the film that has the characteristics that you like. Then you choose the developer that suits, and the paper to print on to enhance the final product.

Of course this all assumes that you know what effect you are looking for.

However, I can say what I like myself and why, and if we get a few other views the info may tell you what you want to know.

For lanscape work, I like griity, crisp images that sing off the paper. My choice is, therefore, a conventional silver film with crisp grain structure. I am not too worried about grain - I quite like it. I don't like using tripods because I like unusual viewpoints and they cramp my style. Conclusion: Kodak Tri-X developed in Paterson FX-39.

For architecture, finer grain so Kodak Plus-X in FX-39.

For portraits and the finest skin tones I move to modern T-grain films, and my choice is Kodak T-Max 100 again in FX-39. This is similar to your Delta 100, but I prefer the tonality of Kodak films.

With the subject matter you mention, candids will benefit from high shutter speeds probably, and landscapes I have defined above, so that would lead me to Kodak Tri-X as a perfect all round film. Alternatives would be Ilford HP5, Agfapan 400, Fuji Neopan 400, Ilford delta 400 and Kodak T-Max 400 amongst others.

Once you have a film you like, stick with it and really learn to use it and it will pay dividends. There is a lot of expressive character that can be extracted from film.

If we are talking about rechargeable batteries, they may take a few charges before they will hold a full charge.

We use NiMH 2300 mAh batteries, and on a recent week's holiday I only changed the batteries once, and Sue didn't change hers at all all week. The battery life in the *istDS is really extremely good.

What specification of batteries were you using?

There's a bit of a mixture of things there, but I'll try a few thoughts:

When you change the ISO speed from say 100 to 160 this is 2/3 stop under-exposure, but that could be well within the exposure latitude of your film. Over-exposure you would notice right away with slide film, but under-exposure only intensifies the colours until it become so severe that the shadows block up.

So it also depends upon the subject - the eye would be hard pressed to see differences in density of a grey card, for example, until quite a large difference occured. And then if the composition changed slightly from shot to shot the amount of sky, for example, might change the exposure anyway, so you would need a tripod mounted camera for a proper test.

In short, there are so many variables that you need to undertake a proper scientific approach to make meaningful deductions.

You can tell if the MZ-M is accepting the changes to the ISO setting by setting up the camera on a tripod, metering a grey card under controlled lighting and then changing the ISO significantly and metering again. You need to eliminate all the variables.

Having said that, if the slides looked OK, then they were OK....

I was judging a competition and doubted the colours of a particular shot, but the photographer put me right and assured me that they were genuine...

We can't really know unless we were there, although different films and probably different CCDs will see things differently to us and to each other.

I do find digital colour somewhat cleaner than film in some ways, and since the processing of Kodachrome more or less guarantees a horrible magenta cast these days I'm not quite sure which colour slide film I really like.

The 24-90mm, which is where we started this thread, is an excellent lens and serves very well, but there are plenty of others both autofocus and manual focus that also deliver the goods.

I am very tempted to go back to primes even for the digital cameras, especially with the new 40mm beckoning....The 24mm f2 looks nice....A 100mm Macro would be lovely....

Here we go again!

Dust and marks in the viewing system are irritating, but fortunately have no effect on the image.

If you really want to clean the system, I'd suggest getting it done professionally as the collimation of the screen is so very critical.

Thanks for the link, George.

I can only report my understanding as being that the change in voltage can result in underexposure of around two stops, but I am open to correction on this!

It's probably worth mentioning that cameras from the M series should not be used with lithium cells, which will fit but have higher voltages and also get rather hot. This is not good for these cameras, so silver oxide G13 cells give the best results for these.