No, not at all Nigel. Exposure is exposure and in both cases we should ensure that we don't blow out the highlights.

At least we don't have to suffer the sorrows of Orwochrome any more!

The dynamic range is a different issue Nigel. With transparency film, the shadows might go pure black. With digital, the shadows will be full of usable information.

The issue being discussed is ensuring that the highlights are not blown out. It's actually very easy to achieve this with digital cameras and getting easier. The MX-1, for example, shows the blown out highlights before the shot is taken, rather than needing to check the playback image.

Totally agree with Ken. Pretend your digital shots are on transparency film and you won't go far amiss.

It might really be the case, bit I doubt that it helps us very much.

29mm would have been close enough.

You did imply K mount lenses LennyBloke, so I assumed that was the brief.

645 and 67 lenses, and indeed 110 and Q lenses, are another subject I think.

Your square format is very appropriate for the subject and the out of focus background is beautifully rendered also.

The MX-1 is very useful for close up subjects, as are many compact cameras, and the quality is very nice indeed.

The systems have been compared in the photo press and on the web quite extensively.

In lens systems wobble but can be seen to lock, which some might think a good thing, but makes me sea-sick to look at. It may be more efficient in reducing shake, but not dramatically so. It makes lenses more expensive and bulkier. It strikes me it also leaves more to go out of alignment.

In body systems may be slightly less efficient, but can be used with all lenses and accessories. Lenses can be more compact and less expensive, but the second is a moot point sometimes.

In any event the systems allow a 2-4 stop advantage in hand holding, but none of them help at all with subject movement. So birds, for example, still need high shutter speeds to arrest their movement.

I can only state with certainty the lenses I am less enamoured with, sometimes after trying several samples.

There would be: M series 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/2 and all series the 120mm lenses. The FA 28-70mm f/4 always seemed a little short on character, a certain coldness or blandness about the images.

All the other lenses I've tried have been fine.

Lens questions are rarely so clear cut though. The rendering of Pentax lenses is lovely and it suits me. Some other marques produce equally sharp but unexciting images, but the questions about "better" becomes "better in what way?" once we get to the top manufacturers.