The DL screen is removable but it's damned awkward and far too easy to bl**dy well scratch

It is nice though

If you click on the aBay link on the post by stevejcoe, you'll see that there's a rather nice K1000 SE finished in brown leather, currently listed.

I was once tempted by a special edition Minolta.
It was a Dynax 8000i c/w flashgun and zoom lens (28-105, I think), all in a creamy-champagne type colour.
It was available at a very reasonable second-hand price, for what was one of the best/most sophisticated cameras available at the time.

I didn't go for it a) because I already had some Pentax kit and b) because I couldn't decide whether the outfit looked really cool or slightly ghastly

I imagine it must cost a fortune to produce radically different limited edition models but of course, many models in the 70s and 80s were offered in a choice of black or chrome and brown leather was quite common too.

Amazing that so many components are still working, worth keeping for spares I would think.........but then again, perhaps not!

Yes it's most probably the FA power-zoom model (F 1:4-5.6).

The Z10 was the first of the Z series cameras and although basic by today's standards, was highly innovative - in true Pentax style!
Both Pentax and Minolta placed a great deal of emphasis on the powered zoom feature but it wasn't really that successful, although I like it.
The camera isn't really worth much now but is still a very capable machine, the lens however is a bit special.
Assuming that the lens and camera were bought new, the lens would have cost around £300 and the buyer made a wise choice. The 'standard' FA28-80mm power-zoom lens isn't particularly good but the FA28-105 is excellent (optically superior to the F35-135) and is highly resistant to flare - you hardly ever need a lens hood!
The power-zoom facility (limited on the Z10 but more versatile on the Z1) is a bit gimmicky but it works quite well and the 80's and 90's were all about gimmicks.

If I remember correctly, power-zoom is available on some other cameras besides the Z series, I think the MZS and the K10D can use it but even on a camera without that capability, the FA28-105 is a superb lens.

You wont find that many FA28-105s for sale and I think £75 is a very good price - and you'd be getting the camera for next to nothing

Well, it's relatively bright for a 500mm mirror lens and the quality is bound to be at least as good as the Centon f8.
Mirrors are quite a simple design and although the Centon is a poor performer, it was considered good value at a new price of around £100.
This one looks to be as described (as new) and assuming that it does fit OK on the K10, I would think that it would be well worth a bid or two.

The Tamron SP500mm f8 is an excellent performer and works perfectly on my DL but it is slower. You should be able to pick up the Tamron for around £50, so I wouldn't pay much more than that for the Rubinar.

I suppose a fisheye lens would be perfectly true to life........for a fish!



Sorry, that wasn't much of a contribution, was it?

Yes Mongoose is right, at F11 you'll need an extremely bright and contrasty subject for the AF system to get its teeth into.
Also, as you approach the extremes of the focal range of zoom lenses the image quality tends to drop off a bit and adding a converter makes it even worse. Even with good quality lenses and converters such as yours, the image might be just a little too soft for the camera to focus on - you might manage a shot of a zebra on a bright sunny day though!

I have exactly the same situation with my AF 1.7x converter and F 35-135 3.5/4.5 (nice but not one of Pentax's sharpest lenses), with average lighting/contrast conditions, AF is a bit 'hit and miss' at 135mm.

When I bought my adapter new over fifteen years ago it was about £80 but they're hard to find nowadays and likely to cost a fair bit more.
When fitted to the Pentax AF 1.7x converter, you focus the lens manually (you normally just set it to infinity) and the auto-focusing is done within the converter - so it's real purpose is to provide AF capabilities to MF lenses!

I like it too, can't say that the technique really does a lot for me but it's a very pleasing image.
I think you just get away with the empty sky because the coloured components make up for it but if it were monochrome, then I don't think it would work so well - still be nice though!

A couple of minor points: the horizon isn't quite level but without the picture frame, you probably wouldn't notice and the outline of the land/cliffs doesn't quite look right to me - a wee bit oversharp perhaps!

Composition wise, I think the only thing I might change very slightly is the viewpoint, I can't make my mind up as to whether I'd prefer the telescope head completely above or below the waterline