Thank you for some very clear and helpful advice.
Malcolm

I use Ni-MH rechargeable AA batteries with my *istD.

I have three sets and keep them well charged ready for use.

Recently, the camera's battery level meter shows a full charge for 10 or 20 shots and then moves to ½ charge where it stays for another 100 or so shots.

Is the quick reduction in power, and limited life, an identical fault with all three sets of batteries, or a problem with the camera?

Also, I am thinking of switching to rechargeable CR-V3 batteries. Is this a good move? Will they last any longer between charges?

Thanks,
Malcolm

The lens hood on my Pentax 16-45mm began to work loose ... so, with trepidation, I did the following.

(Only copy this action AT YOUR OWN RISK!)

I removed the hood and placed small a blob of super glue on each of the 3 lugs on the lens hood, and LEFT IT OVERNIGHT to dry.

The next day I put the hood on the lens and then quickly removed it again, just in case it stuck.

I waited another day ... and now the hood is a tighter fit and all is well.

Is there an easier, and safer way, to increase the friction and keep the hood firmly in place?

Thanks for the quick reply.

On the matter of focus I did have a problem yesterday. The problem was not the accuracy of the focus, (that seemed to be spot on) but the focus lock would not work. For that matter, the exposure lock also would not work.

But today ..... its all working OK! I put it down to dirty contacts.

I've just noticed that when I use a Sigma 24-135mm f2.8-4.5 lens on my *istD, the Exif data (in Pentax Browser) says that the lens is a Pentax-F 28-80mm f3.5-4.5.

Does this approximation affect the MFT value .... or anything else?

Malcolm.

I am using a Teleplus 2x MC7 converter (just bought on eBay) with my Pentax 16-45mm lens and had great results. Highly recommended. The autofocus of the Teleplus will only work with lenses which have an aperture of f4.5 or larger. This is OK with my f/4 16-45 lens, but the autofocus will not work with my 28-105mm at the longer end when it becomes f/5.6.
Don't forget that a 2x converter will lose 2 stops so an indicated f/4.5 is really f/8! It is good on the *istD to allow "sensitivity correction" as I often find the camera needing to work at 800 or even 1600 ISO.

Amateur Photographer has just tested the *istDL and given it a good write-up.

One improvement over the D and DS is an opinion that the "image processing algorithms have been refined ..." to produce "images with clearer, sharper detail".

Would it be possible for Pentax to confirm this, and whether the improvement could be released as a firware upgrade for the D and DS models?

That's good news and makes sense. Thanks for the information.

Many thanks for your comment. I must admit that I have not felt a similar bias against Pentax.

However, in the 4 way test you mentioned, was any mention made of the lenses used with each camera?

My argument is that digital image quality is a combination of the lens used AND the sensor .... and that the quality of the lens is ignored by the testers.

One point I am trying to make is that the testing of a DSLR needs a different approach to that of testing a film SLR.

Tests on a film SLR body do not normally comment on the sharpness of the image because that is down to the lens used and, to a lesser extent, the film.

However, tests on a DSLR comment on the sharpness of the image because the sensor (replacing the film) is an integral part of the camera body. But what about the lens used? Surely this must be the major factor in establishing how sharp the image will be ..... but the lens is not on test, only the camera body.

My argument is that when DSLRs are tested, the type and quality of the lens must be an integral part of the assessment.

I think AP now realise something along these lines as the early tests of DSLRs commented on fringing, making no reference to the lens used. At least in the test of the *ist DS the slight fringing experienced was seen as conditional upon the lens used, and not solely as a defect of the sensor.

Should the same thinking apply to sharpness? That's my question.