Thanks, it would seem variable speed would be a good feature then, satisfying all users. Thinking about the menus and how they work (for example, 2 sec or 12 sec delayed action) it might be necessary to have a similar stepped system, say, 1.6, 3, 5, 7. The 1.6 we can substitute whatever the figure is for a particular model to give continuous shooting.

Thanks Mike. Would it be fair to say 4fps or 2fps would also achieve that, or do you think 3fps is ideal?

Probably because you've filtered out all the visible light, so the camera cannot work out a white balance. The picture is going to be red come what may.

Why were you trying to do this?

You tend to get what you pay for and cheap polarisers often have colour casts. Have you thought about finding a good one at a reasonable price on eBay?

You know what it's there for. It's the fastest probably that can ensure uninterrupted shooting until the card is full.

If I asked you what use is the two second delay you would be able to tell me. No vibration, mirror locks up, SR is switched off, perfect for shake free tripod shots, especially for macro work. That's the benefit.

I'm trying to find out what the benefit of a 3fps rate is, but nobody seems to be able to provide an example.

It is always appreciated if we could avoid the temptation to quote spam - that adds yet another post to remove.....posts about the spam duly removed!

i doubt that anyone would jump ship because they wanted a portrait lens Dave, but I do take your point.

However, if you compare like with like in the various ranges then the lenses are mostly much of a muchness price wise. The very cheap Canon 50mm is exactly that - gloriously cheap in every respect. It performs adequately but I wouldn't want to buy one.

We have yet to see where the new lens fits in as supplies have not really started yet and the price hasn't yet fallen to its final value. I would guess good value at just under £200 at some stage.

You've resurrected this one from ages ago Paul, but I can tell you that the batteries in question were a disgrace. The Pentax one had stood up to what was clearly hard use, the third party ones had not. I merely report what I observed. There are many types of third party battery and I can't tell you at this juncture what these were.

As for the book and its cover, it's an interesting comparison but no, I don't think so. We would judge the book later if all the pages fell out of one edition, but another edition was still in good intact condition. If we want to complete the analogy, the faulty one would perhaps be a cheap paperback and the good one perhaps a Penguin Book.

I think the answer is that there's a misconception that has arisen. Many people may consider a 50mm lens a "standard lens" and indeed it was, on film. And is, on a full frame DSLR. However, on an APS-C DSLR the standard lens is a 35mm and Pentax do indeed make a (very fine) budget standard lens.

Many have asked for a 70-200mm f2.8 and the same applies - our equivalent is the 50-135mm f2.8, again, a very fine lens.

The 50mm lens is actually a short telephoto and is equivalent to what was 75mm - a short portrait lens. If we want an 85mm f1.4, as was, then the 55mm f1.4 is it.

If we want a 100/105mm lens as was, then the 70mm and 77mm fit the bill, and so on. All the lenses are there, in the correct lengths for APS-C sensors.

Just taking up the comment from Paul, who seems to have resurrected the battery question, I would say overall finish and attention to detail do actually have a bearing on identifying the overall quality levels applied.

If the covers and pieces of our Pentax cameras didn't fit very well and the batteries arrived with labels peeling off we would probably think this was a low quality product.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.