I bought another *ist D about a year ago. I found I still had some unused accessories from the time I bought one new. I still like the camera.

Today, it has replaced a notebook and pen. On days I'm going out for just for a general walk, I take the *ist D and take a picture of something I might later come back and take more seriously with a tripod and filters etc. Far better than the notepad, as I often get a good picture anyway, and the picture tells me far more than I would want to write down.

So very true. But I'm not sure the race to pack as many pixels in camera sensors, particularly APS-C sensors is going to help photography, other than make you feel you need a newer camera? I note that with the K3 II, it's not just about the 24MP sensor, it's now what you can do to get more from it, rather than just increase the number.

I took a good many decent photos with an *ist D and a look in the gallery here will no doubt find countless others. You can make far better improvements by upgrading the photographer, rather than the camera and that's the 'resolution' I try to make.

It's all well and good banning cameras everywhere, but many photos/Vlogs etc to social media get taken with camera 'phones, many of which I reluctantly have to say give exceptional image quality.

I've been asked in London - very nicely - if I would not take photos near a railway station - and yet all around me were people taking pictures with 'phones doing the same thing as I was. When I questioned that point, I was met with 'I'm told no cameras, and they're 'phones'. This sort of nonsense goes on all the time. It's even more daft, as I simply moved further away, swapped lenses and still got the images I wanted!

It's all a bit George Orwell.

I shot slide film almost exclusively for years and have many thousands of them. As a result, this is a subject I have some real interest in.

If you don't have many, there are as you know, companies who will convert them to digital images for you. One of my local friends - not really into photography - did this with a collection from his late father. The results were OK, but as a photographer yourself, OK is not what you will be aiming for.

I also have a Nikon Coolscan IV, which although it is an older piece of equipment, still produces good images. I have acquired a flat bed scanner in the last year (an Epson V600) and even if your needs are small at the moment, the Epson is very versatile and scans negatives as well as photos; it's also clear that technology has moved on and the images from this are far superior than the Coolscan. The Epson also scans 4 x 35mm slides at a time and there is another model which will scan 12 x 35mm slides at a time.

The other option is to use a duplicator attached to a suitable lens and use your own DSLR. I believe SRB offer one suitable for crop sensor cameras. I have seen a Nikon D800 and a 60mm lens with a slide holder used and the results were really good - and quick to obtain. I mention this as Pentax will be launching a FX camera at some point (hopefully soon) and I'm really keen to try this method myself with a full frame sensor camera.

Lastly, don't throw any slides out. I kept slides I thought were really poor taken 20-30+ years ago, and modern technology and software now may make them recoverable, or put to another use, such as abstracts or isolating usable parts of a slide that has age or storage related damage and decay.

Good luck!

I never throw film away, but 10 years ago I came close to breaking this rule, and considered throwing some old slides out that had been badly stored. Today, I'm scanning and repairing these with scanning technology and software that didn't exist a decade ago.

Loads of photos stored on early computer formats which haven't been transferred to later methods will at some point get binned.

I have been scanning slides I took decades ago and am impressed by how well they have kept, whilst noting the first images from the *ist D could have been better stored. By that I mean we as photographers in the digital age often think of storage for now, rather than long term, as negatives and slides were/are so durable long term. It's also impossible to predict how digital images will be stored 20+ years from now.

I came to the conclusion that the best thing was to share the pictures about. As I've come across older images where others were present, I've e-mailed them to those I'm still in touch with. No guarantee that this will preserve them any more, but memories that can be shared is a worthy cause in its own right and numbers out there may preserve them for the future - should people feel that it is worth keeping.

I've also considered printing more pictures in future; this also helps focus me whilst taking new pictures - would I want this displayed?

What an excellent approach to potential new members. First impressions count. I went to my local club (at the time) in the late 80s for one evening, and I have never been through the door of a camera club since.

I'm well aware that time has moved on, and internet searches of my now local clubs appear all to be excellent towards new people, and I hope they adopt the methods of your club.

I can't really add to the excellent advise above, but as woodland and landscape is my real interest, this is how I normally plan it.

I'm lucky enough to live close by to some interesting scenery. I tend to go out a few days before with a bridge camera and take some pictures on a good walk, generally of places I want to revisit with a DSLR. I then have the idea of where I want to be, the kind shot I want to compose, an idea of the time I want to take it and the equipment I'll need to carry to get it.

I have both of these myself, and most of my work is done in Lightroom.

I seem to have weeks where I do lots of photography and then other things in life take over. Because of that, it was better for me to buy the software. I think that next time it comes to renewing, I'll probably go with the monthly payment and have access to all of the programmes. If you have a steady weekly flow of photography, maybe that's an option for you now.

All good points. My own view demands that the artist (or photographer) has had some considerable input into the finished image from the initial concept and creation. So if a photographer has taken several photos him/herself and combined them into one image (and I think we have to allow royalty free non copyright images in small proportions) that's fine. Now I may not like the end result, but I respect the work of someone else and it might lead me to challenge why I don't like something, or try it myself.

Images taken from various sources that have had no connection with the person presenting the finished image as his own work, is just a step too far for me to accept. I understand that this is commonplace, but does it have the same right to be respected, as someone who created the original images that were merged together?