I don't have my DL manual to hand, but I believe it fires a burst of flash under low light conditions, as an AF illuminator.
I suspect that the DS does the same and perhaps yours is somewhat over-zealous in this respect but if you need to use the fash (except for daylight sync.), it's probably working correctly!

Try switching to single point AF and see if that makes a difference - I'm wondering if the system requires a certain level of brightness across a number of points, when using multi.

..........and I thought it was me that came up with the naff analogies

True dinosaurs (the extinct ones) were hardly defeated by mammals, T-Rex versus hamster - I've got an inkling which one might win!
Mammals and in particular humans (supposedly the ultimate mammal) have only existed for a fraction of the time that dinosaurs roamed the earth for. We've already lost many mammals and others are facing extinction, even in this so called 'enlightened' age.

I recently visited a steam fair, traction engines and steam locomotives are perhaps the dinosaurs of the automotive era, they are magnificent and highly cherished by legions of enthusiasts, will the same be said of many of today's machines?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that mainstream cameras are designed for producing images that can be handled in a convenient package (standard sized prints) or transmitted by electronic means and so film and digital cameras have a place in today's market and the majority of users of this forum regularly use both.
The technology in digital cameras may well have been around for many years but has only recently been packaged successfully in mainstream SLR cameras and I believe Contax have just released the first proper digital camera back for 35mm cameras - thus incorporating the best of both worlds. Digital is still evolving and even 35mm has not yet reached the end of the road.

At least high quality digital SLR's are now affordable, back in 1989 there was a Kodak (8MP, I think) based on a Nikon F4 that cost £25,000 - the same as the value of my house at that time!

What a great thread this has turned out to be

I'm a relative newcomer to digital and although I know a fair bit about photography in general, I am by no means an expert but as an enthusiast, I love both film and digital media.
Both have unique merits but also a great deal in common, today's cameras generally share capabilities and either type can perform admirably under most circumstances - there really is no 'right or wrong' way to go as it's mainly down to personal preference.
If you dismiss one in favour of the other, then it's you who's missing out!

Kim's preference at this time is for film, whereas George leans toward digital and that's all perfectly fine because both appreciate the merits of each other's arguments. If only other people weren't so dismissive of other people's views, let's just take photographs and enjoy the whole experience!

It's kinda like the arguments you get when comparing pop groups or football teams or anything that people feel passionate about - some insist that one is absolutely superb, while the other is totally cr*p - which is of course complete and utter nonsense

Oh dear, it was me that said it was more convenient, wasn't it?

Let me explain, you get immediate feedback from digital and it's relatively easy to manipulate the image. With film, you'd most probably have to revisit the site, reposition the subjects, wait until the light was right and then bracket your exposures to ensure that you had one decent shot.
Finish the film, package it up and send it away..........wait 48hours or so and then be disappointed with approx. 2/3rds of the prints.

Now don't get me wrong, I never really wanted to go digital but I have and I like it but I still think that traditional film is real photography.
Photographic publications have always featured images that have been manipulated 'post-exposure' and stunning as they may be, they do tend to look artificial. Flick through any digital mag. and you'll see loads of pictures with unbelievably vivid colours and wacky superimposed features - impressive and imaginative perhaps but 'clever', no not really!
The true art of the photographer, IMHO, is the ability to visualize an image and have the necessary skills to create that image within the camera.
Anyone can manipulate an image but not everyone can competantly use a camera, just as a musician can play a synthesizer and may be entitled to call himself a musician, but synthesizing the sound of a guitar doesn't make him a guitarist

What I find astounding is the fact that modern cameras can achieve all this and ascertain the correct exposure (using an algorithm based upon the settings used for thousands of 'correctly' exposed images and finding a match to the current subject) and relating the settings chosen to the characteristics of the lens being used........all in a fraction of a second - the time it takes for your finger to fire the shutter

It's a little unusual for the manual to only mention the AF360FGZ, my Z1-P manual for instance, lists about half a dozen different models that can be used with little loss of functionality.

I would be very suprised if the AF400FTZ wasn't fully compatible with the *istD range but it might be worth contacting Pentax UK, just to be sure

The only lens that I 'damaged' was my F35-135, whilst fitted to my SFX.
It fell off a seat in Malaga airport, it was inside a padded holster case with filter and lens cap fitted. Despite the padding and the fact that it only fell 18" or so, the lens barrel became loose. At first, everything seemed ok and the lens was perfectly usable but I soon discovered that the barrel could be unscrewed and removed, complete with front element.
Fortunately, our holiday was over and there was a strong chance that the barrel, when extended under zooming, could fall out and so I promptly sent it to Pentax for repair upon returning home.
That was six or seven years ago and the lens is still perfectly fine, the filter didn't play a role in the incident but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

I think it goes to prove however, that no matter how tough you think your gear is or how well protected, you can never keep it too safe!

I've always used UV/skylight filters, it's easier to clean a flat piece of glass than a curved lens element but your arguments against using them make perfect sense

Jon, I would have thought that the MZ-7 was about average - seeing as it's a fairly recent model!
Is it significantly noisier than your MZ-M?, if so, then I suspect that it could do with a service.

Have you tried adjusting the diopter control on the viewfinder? - most Pentax's have them and I believe the MZ-M has one too.

Of course, if you want a really quiet AF SLR, try an *ist digital - apart from the shutter release, they're virtually silent

It's an SLR so WYSIWYG - you see through the viewfinder what the sensor 'sees', just like your MZ5n.
It is the effective focal length that changes ie. your FA50mm will provide the same angle of view on *ist DSLR as a 75mm lens would on an MZ5n.