I use the Spyder2 Suite, bought from www.warehouseexpress.co.uk. The Spyder2 hardware is the same across the range, only the software changes to offer varying amounts of functions 'n features and the ability to profile printers etc.

I don't know anything about the 'express' variant. It'll probably do a great job of calibrating your monitor and at €/£85.00 it's a pretty good buy . . .the Suite is twice the price, and Pro, nearly twice as much again.

Personally, I think the SMC coating + the additional anti-ghosting etc. coatings of the DA range of lenses produces a superior result, requiring much less post-processing, to other third party lenses. These third party products will always be cheaper than equivalent system branded lenses, else they'll not sell at all.

The SMC coating is legendry for its anti-flare, colour definition, and contrast characteristics. My opinion is that the coating of any lens adds that extra 'polish' (for want of a better description) to the final image (film or digital) and Pentax's DA range reign's supreme for digital in my book. Even some of the older Pentax branded lenses made by Tokina and Cosina etc. are much improved with the addition of the SMC coating.

The 16-45mm DA is a very fine lens and well worth the £300 I paid for mine from www.parkcameras.com. I have yet to give my 12-24mm DA any real exercise but I fully expect it to be equally as good.

As for current pricing of your 20-35mm, check the on-line camera shop prices first, ebay prices will generally be 2/3 to 3/4 of that price, sometimes less, depending on the seller, and more importantly, depending on the right buyers, those willing to pay what it's actually worth.

I do have the same lens, but not with me. I've just had a look at http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/long/A70-210f4.html and it doesn't look to me as if the front element has the bezel, found on most primes, which you unscrew with a rubber cup tool.

I'm not a lens repair expert so do wait for others more knowledgeable than I to offer their advice.

Whilst I have taken lenses apart, cleaned them, and put them back together again, they are examples that would otherwise go in the bin (some of my less noteworthy ebay purchases). Except for my Vivitar Series One 70-210 Macro, that was particularly dirty inside, not fungus, just gunk, and it cleaned up well.

From experience, having hunted around my bedroom carpet on my hands and knees for a tiny spring for what seemed like days, work in a clean & light environment. Preferebly on a white surface, and nowhere near long pile carpets. Drop a tiny screw and it'll get swallowed by the carpet.

Also, try not to remove the aperture ring if you can avoid it. There is a tiny (and I mean very tiny) ball bearing in there with an even smaller spring behind it. If you do have to remove it, this is where the white working surface comes in handy.

I'm sorry I can't help much more until I'm reunited with my lenses on Thursday.

I don't have any experience taking that particular lens apart but I have taken my Vivitar Series one lens apart and its quite easy. It does help if you have the right tools, lens spanners etc. (all available from www.micro-tools.com )

You might do well to start by having a look at www.mypentax.com where you will find a step by step guide to dismantling a standard lens (Zooms are more complicated) and some useful info on lens related fungal infections.

I used acetone to clean mine. Worked great.

If, like my Vivitar, your front element is just one piece of glass, you should be quite succesful in just removing that and cleaning it. If however it is a lens group made up of 2 or more lenses, and the fungus is between them, bin the lens as it is not economically viable to clean it. In this case the individual lenses making up the group have to be separated, and that is a professional (read expensive) job.

If you undertake this exercise, do make sure you are in as dust free environment as possible.

Try this for one file. Even though the files read-only attribute is unchecked, check it, apply changes, then uncheck it, apply changes again. Note and report any errors that might pop up.

In other words, force the file to be read-only in Windows. Then make it readable.

Also, you might use Windows disk checking utility to determine if any errors exist.

If you are using Windows XP, you'll find it under DriveLetter > Properties > Tools . Substitute your actual drive letter. You also have the option to fix errors, I suggest you don't for the first pass. If errors sre found, decide whether you want to check the 'fix errors' box.

Interesting viewpoint but not a very likely course of action for Pentax I think. I can't see them pulling out ogf the DSLR market. Not yet anyway. Another interesting point that occured to me whilst reading another LL article:-

2006 is the 30th anniversary of the introduction of the K1000 SLR. With that milestone, and the reputation it has gained over the years, what's the betting that the new 10.2MP DSLR will be named . . . K1000D ? Are Pentax that sentimental ?, we'll see.

uksoftwaretech prices do look very good, enough to tempt an impulsive 'Buy It Now'. Then comes the 17.5% VAT sting and their prices suddenly don't look that great.

I rate www.warehouseexpress.co.uk pretty highly.

BTW Robin is from www.harrowtechnical.co.uk, who's advert appears in the header of these forum pages.

Using a polaroid to 'pre-proof' a shot is actually not a bad idea. I for one have taken a shot only to find a lamppost or something similar sticking out of the top of someone's head. You know, the one that isn't there when you frame the shot, then it suddenly jumps into frame to cause maximum annoyance and completely destroys the pic. Yet in 2D on a piece of paper, its somehow much more obvious and most times leaps off of the page at you.

Firstly, I am an amateur photographer.

I would argue that the only requirement of any digital camera, that a pro might use, is to be able to sell his output to his target market.

Now that target market is very wide ranging and to tag any camera with a 'professional' or amateur" label is not that easy, neither is it relevant.

For instance, if you are a web site designer by profession, any 4MP or upwards digital camera would produce images of sufficient 'quality' for your chosen profession. So does that make a 4MP OkiCoki2000 a 'professional' camera, maybe yes.

I could paint other scenarios, but I think you get my drift.

If you are taking pictures to present as an art form, where the 'quality' is in the content, composition, etc. Then a large or medium format (analogue or digital) is possibly necessary, especially if you intend to cover an 8mtr X 20mtr wall with the result.

I suppose my argument is, there are so many 'professions' requiring varying degrees of 'percieved quality' that no one camera can suit all of them.

'Horses for courses' springs to mind. If your chosen profession means that whatever camera you use produces an output that sells, by default, that's a professional camera. IE: It's a camera that adequately satisfies an imaging profession.

Wedding photographer's, for instance, don't use 10X8 'professional' cameras, because they don't need to. I know one such photographer who has had a wedding booked for almost every weekend for the past 2 years. He gets his business by referrals (from previously very satisfied customers) and up until recently uses a 4MP Minolta. Is that a professional camera?

The bottom line is that the term 'professional' when applied to any technology, not just photography, cannot be very easily defined.

If you have a flat panel monitor, you are looking at a 'free' lightbox. Open a blank document, white background, and lay the monitor on its back. Place your trannies or negs on it and copy away.

Do be careful not to damage the front of the monitor, perhaps with slides in plastic mounts. You could lay a sheet of oversized glass on the monitor and put your copy subjects on that.

Also, as the light from the monitor is not pure white, set your white balance manually using the monitor as the source. Your colour replication should then be pretty well spot-on.