That was Pentax's first attempt at a DSLR using, I believe, a Kodak sensor. The body was based on the MZ-S design. It was later abandoned in favour of the APS-C sized sensor first made commercially available in the form of the *istD.

Thanks Clarky.

If I might make a small correction though, the carapace is what covers the front (cephalothorax) body component of a spider. The rear is its abdomen.

SMC Pentax-FA is often shortened to SMCP FA or SMC P-FA or SMCP-FA and yes, that's the lens I suggested. If it's new, it should be the equivalent of around £145.00. used, they fetch almost as much. If it's much more than that, contact Chris at www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk, he might do a deal on postage for you.

I can't imagine how two lenses having ranges of 10-20mm and 17-70mm can possibly be compared. They have almost entirely different uses.

If you've bought a 10-20mm lens, surely it's because you discovered that you wanted something wider than the 17-70mm could achieve.

You're welcome. I should have added that the bokeh rendered by the lens I suggested is about the best you'll find for the money. The out of focus (OOF) background is achieved due to the much shallower depth of field produced by the FA 50mm 1.4

If you are in UK, try www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk . Mention your forum member name to get free postage to a UK address.

Welcome to the forum.

To achieve your goal you need a 'faster' lens. That is, a lens which has a wider maximum aperture (smaller f number) than your kit lens.

I would have no hesitation in recommending the SMC Pentax-FA 50mm 1:1.4 lens. You will not be disappointed with it and you should be able to achieve something similar to your last pic, in camera, but with a much sharper foreground subject.

Hefty1: I'll try a white background tomorrow if the spider is still around after the deluge of rain we've had tonight. I think it needs a light background. If I use a black (or dark) background, the hairs on it's legs will not show up so much. Changing the background colour in Photoshop is not going to work without an awful lot of work.

Terje-l: Thanks for your comments. In contrast to Clarky, I've spent a shed load of money on macro lighting equipment . . . and I didn't even use it today. I had the sun very low, and just over my left shoulder when I took this. Hence the bright spots on the bee's body. I took one later with just the pop-up flash and it's not in the same league as natural sunshine.

royd63k: It was certainly waiting around the flower for its prey. After it had finished with the bee, it had a go at a wasp . . . but missed. I'd put the camera away by then though.

In the light of your various comments, I'll leave this one as it is and have another go at taking the shot with a different background, probably white, tomorrow.

I shot this today, natural light, tripod mounted K20D + FA 100mm Macro . . .



Question to all: What would you do with the background to improve this pic?. The beige colour is my front (coloured concrete) wall. The plant is a Lantana, the victim, a bee. The spider . . . I have no clue.

JohnMcD,

If the year is right in your copyright notice, neither of these could have been taken with the infamous *istDS

MZ-6 is a very capable camera and also has wireless/P-TTL flash. I believe it can also handle older TTL flashes.

My favourite however has to be the MZ-S. The only drawback with this body is that you can't use lenses which have no aperture ring (FA-J etc). Other than that, it's both rugged and reliable. Sadly, mine sees little use nowadays. Decent film processing in Spain requires a mortgage and I've been totally digital now for a couple of years.