I agree with Alan, it's not worth the effort unless you want to practice taking lenses apart. Not all fungus can be cleaned off anyway.

If it were a fast 50mm or an A series or above it might be worth it.

I was careful to excuse contributions from those having dyslexia, I should have also excused posters who's first language is other than english. Apologies for that . . . but it's perfectly reasonable to get ones knickers twisted once in a while, particularly when the incorrect spelling of lens crops up for the umpteenth hundred time and causes one to see red.

I feel better now and have no wish to discourage any contributions to this forum from anybody. My post was an attempt at education, if it offends, it was not my intention, but hopefully everyone now knows how to spell lens correctly and will remember. Job done then.

This is a rant: Please move on if not interested.

More & more posts on here contain glaring spelling errors for some of the simplest of photographic terms, some of which are easily corrected if re-learned properly. Now there is a difference between incorrect spelling and typographical error, the latter can only be improved with keyboard practice. The former can be corrected very easily by simple re-learning.

So:-

1: Lense - The spelling of lens is "lens". "Lense" is kind of half way between lens (singular) and lenses (plural), which is, well, nowhere really. It doesn't exist, it's "a letter short of a word" if you like, you know, like the phrase "a sandwich short of a picnic".

2: Aperature - correctly spelled and pronounced, is "aperture".

Now I know that some contributors on here a genuinely dyslexic and can be forgiven/excused for getting some words wrong. For the rest of us, for goodness sake learn to spell and pronounce the terms of your chosen art/craft/hobby correctly.

Rant over,

Personally, I would save a bit more and go for the 12-24mm and have photo's with a realistic view rather than fisheye. The 10-17mm is a curvilinear lens imparting the well known barrel shape to photo's. The 12-24mm is rectilinear and keeps straight lines straight.

I think the K10D at it's price point proves that Pentax does respect their customers by rewarding them with suuuuuuuch a lot of camera for not very much money.

Quite honestly, I'm very surprised at how many have taken the bait. This person seems to be nothing more than a Pentax film camera using wind-up merchant. Some people just will not learn and move on. The 645D is probably the answer to his rantings but I doubt he/she will stump up the required capital to own one.

As far as I know there is no total frame counter that is accesible to us mere mortals. There may well of course be a clever piece of Pentax test gear that can reveal this info. Even if there were, it would not provide information relating to frames between a range of dates, only the total frames shot from new.

It would be interesting to know why this information is important to you, after all, there are very few film cameras that can provide any similar info.

I can understand that it might be important when buying used equipment to know how much use/abuse it's had.

You could always count the images you have saved then guesstimate the number you have deleted.

I think the "you get what you pay for" rule applies here. To make a rock solid, but light enough to carry, tripod requires quality metal materials and a sensible design. Plastic parts in the support mechanism just don't do the job.

It is likely that, if you were to buy a cheap tripod, you will soon become aware of its limitations and would want to change it fairly soon.

My advice is to look for a reasonably priced second hand Manfrotto or similar. You will not be disappointed and you have a choice of heads from micro-ball to multi-way pan & tilt with fluid damping for video if you so wished.

These don't come as cheaply as Jessops kit, but they will last you a lot longer IMHO. The Manfrotto 190D (superceded now I think) is a good lightweight performer and the 055PROB is excellent for both field and studio. I keep a 190D + mini-ball head in my car but my preferred head is the 488RC2 on my 055PROB. It's bigger & heavier but I prefer it.

I would say that the CA was always there in the first place as it is simply a function of the lens design, subject, & lighting, not the body. With the increased dynamic range and higher resolution of the K10D (lucky so and so), defects in the lens, as well as the good bits, are going to be more defined and hence easier to see.

Oh well, never mind. Life is sometimes cruel that way.

Have you tried to correct them with PTLens or similar?

Cheers,