The makinon was/is a low cost zoom, no idea if it's any good, but with pentax zooms being so inexpensive I'd stick with those!

For the *istD: More user options in the menus, uses CF cards.
Against: Higher cost, needs firmware upgrades to be applied for some functions with older lenses.

For the *istDS: Already old lens compatible, considerably better LCD monitor screen, uses very compact SD cards.
Against: Can't think of anything!

The only reservation I had about the *istDS was that it used SD cards, and all our other digital cameras used CF. However, because of formatting cards on a particular camera, it has not been a problem.

The picture quality is excellent.

I've been very impressed with the AWB on the *istDS - white walls, for example, have stayed impressively white in a variety of conditions.

However, if you are using tungsten light it would be logical to assist the camera by using the tungsten setting, that's what it is provided for! I wouldn't expect AWB to be the panacea in all circumstances, especially extreme ones.

I try not to store lenses as such, they are all in current use, that is in their appropriate Billingham or other bags, regularly used and kept dry and well aired.

I think the real killer for lenses is the damp, closed environment of old draweers or cupboards.

Extension tubes have the advantage that they do not interfere with the optical construction of the lens, so do not reduce quality in themselves.

You are increasing the distance of the lens elements from the film plane, which is what you do when you focus any conventional lens closer (forget internal focusing for now, to avoid complication) so using the tubes will enable you to focus much closer.

The subject is larger because you are closer and have increased magnification. This means there will be very little depth of field and you will need to stop down as much as possible. For best quality in large prints try to avoid apertures smaller than f16 because quality drops of at the smallest stops.

As you have observed, you need more exposure the longer the tubes you use, because of light fall off as the lens moves further away. This happens in any lens as you rack it outwards to focus closer, but only becomes significant at magnifications greater than around 1:10. This is why a, say, 100mm lens will usually focus to around 1m. Only Macro lenses routinely focus closer.

Good luck with the macro photography!

Glad to report I've finally managed to find that nice 50mm, actually a SMC Pentax-A 50mm f2, lovely condition, and the right price because it was listed as a Chinon CM4s body and the lens attached to it was only in there in the small print....

I was beginning to think I wouldn't find one, because the A series lenses seem to be commanding high prices just now. I suspect DSLR users are finding that a relatively fast 50mm does rather nicely as a portrait lens, and also offers splendid quality for a low (ish) outlay!

Actually, an equivalent to a 75mm lens is quite a useful short tephoto for landscape work as well.

Well, I'll certainly be checking it out! I can't resist lenses, if anyones noticed I do tend to accumulate them....

What I am looking for is a nice 50mm A series lens, if anyone wants to offer me one I'm listening! (It would be more user friendly on my new *istDS)

If you could save them in camera (and I'm not sure if you can) it might not be a good idea to suffer the loss of quality. This is effectively what you would be doing if you used Digital Zoom.

Far better IMHO to use optical Zoom only, save the picture to the card and then make any adjustments, including cropping, in Photoshop or a similar program.

If you want really large prints from small files you could always use Genuine Fractals, which does work, although I felt the images lost something in the process.

Quite right! My error, but the principle I think remains the same.

You're also right about relative costs, George. Personally I never have used telephotos over 150mm very much, it's just not my sort of photography.

There is a 1.4x autofocus converter that enables manual focus lenses to be used as autofocus lenses on AF camera bodies. Don't see why you couldn't use that on the *istDS for the same purpose.

But on the subject of teleconverters, I have never been particularly impressed by the quality. They magnify the abberations of the lens and introduce defects of their own. I have tried 7 element converters, and still haven't been satisfied. I haven't tried a 1.4x converter, and I suppose that will give you the best chance of reasonable results as it is less extreme.