Just to add a little more, there are differences in centre weighted metering patterns too - in other words, the degree of emphasis on the central part of the picture can vary from camera to camera.

Also, although meters are traditionally calibrated to 18% reflectance, some are in fact calibrated to 10%, which confuses the issue further.

I think my MX was very good for transparencies, as it did give the correct density in the slide. My MZ3 (and the MZ5) tend to give more generous exposure, which without due care can lead to burnt out highlights.

The ME Super meter I have always found to be excellent, probably more consistent than any of the others!

A slight difference may have crept in because the older cameras have centre weighted metering and the newer one may wel be set to matrix metering. These different metering patterns may not give identical results. Centre weighted metering is especially susceptible to underexposure if there are large bright areas in the picture (such as sky).

The batteries are not very likely to be the source of the trouble, but I would always use silver oxide cells as opposed to alkaline ones.

I agree that processors can often happily undo all the potential atmosphere in a shot, but that's because they are producing an "average" print. Although I have seen some canadian d&p which is streets ahead of the UK....

There are two possible answers - firstly, process and print your own films. There is a mass of inexpensive darkroom gear available because few people want it. You could probably find someone who would give you an enlarger, never mind selling you one! This will bring down your costs and also increase your ability to be creative.

Secondly, shoot slides, not prints. This is a less expensive route, and what you take is what you get without any intervention. All your special effects and exposure modifications will remain intact - far easier to learn this way.

I guess time moves on, and apart from those of us who have a particular reason to use film, I think most of the market will quickly now become digital. Pentax and all other manufacturers will follow the profitable lines, apart from those wishing to continue to support what may well become a niche market in film.

If I were starting photography today, I would probably not even be looking at film at all, would never experience its benefits and be amazed that anyone would bother....

However, as we know, film does have some unique and beneficial features, and there will be plenty of photographers keeping it going for many years yet!

I believe that we should just have a go at whatever sort of photography interests us, and enjoy it!

1) I think that the advice will work, so in that respect it could be correct.

2) Meters are set to integrate to a 18% grey reflectance (sometimes 10%) and that is all they do, so it can need some intelligent intervention to get the right result. CCDs have less dynamic range than film, so the chances are increased that highlights will be burnt out. I meter as I would for transparency film - another situation where we do not want burnt out highlights at any cost.

Multi-segment metering is much cleverer, but the trouble is we have to second-guess what the deisgner might have programmed the cameras systems to do. Give me simple spot or centre weighted metering any time.

Dare I mention that Fuji CCDs now have two photodiodes at every pixel point - one to record shadow detail, one to record highlights. If this works, it could be the way to go in CCD design.

It is a tricky job to do, but I might be inclined to have a go with a very, very fine metal drill. But do be careful you don't pierce the battery underneath! Once the cover is removed, I would suggest buying a replacement so it can be used normally. Perhaps a scrap camera would provide one, but do check the cost because if it is anything significant, or if the cost of drill bits and a cover starts to approach the £25 quoted, then I might be inclined to let the professionals do the job!

I would suggest the Pentax lenses will be a better bet, which eliminates the Sigma.

The FA-J zoom has no aperture ring, so aperture must be controlled by the camera. If the camera body enables this, fine, otherwise this will eliminate this one.

The FA zoom should be fully useable on Pentaxes of all ages, so this might be the most versatile choice from that point of view.

Otherwise, I would expect a similar performance level in all these lenses.

If you already have Pentax lenses, you will be able to use them on both digital bodies.

I have bought a *istDS because of the lower cost, although the quality does not seem to have suffered, and there seemed no reason to pay more for the *istD.

I suggest you look carefully at the specs and prices, make a choice based on your requirements and then buy it! After that, I always stop looking at alternative prices and offers and just get down to enjoying the new toy!

Hi Andy

I resize in Photoshop 7 to A3 at 300ppi, bicubic resampling. Only moderate levels of Unsharp mask are used to avoid unpleasant edge effects - no more than 50%.

The printer is an Epson 1290s and I use a custom setting for colour and another one for monochrome.

Colour is printed at 2880dpi, magenta reduced by 7.

Monochrome is also 2880dpi and the gamma reset to 2.2. I print using the black cartridge only, and I think the results are very good indeed. To my shame, some of the prints are better than darkroom versions....

All I can add to that is that I try to use relatively straightforward and painkless techniques - as little messing about as possible!

I'm just experimenting with my new *istDS and 18-55mm Pentax zoom. It can produce A3 prints that are absolutely fine - do you need more than this?

As far as I can tell the *istD and *istDS use the same or a very similar chip and the quality should be pretty much identical. The *istDS does not need a firmware upgrade to use older lenses and also has a larger screen on the back.