Hi just reg'd , so bear with the newb on the board

I have an old Pentax MX, which I've had for years, and have built up a few lenses for it, I love it to bits still and have taken some of my best shots with this old clunker. I have been in the market for a new SLR to join it (ie so I can have each loaded with diferent film, and also one for slightly swifter use on what I would term snapshot jobs)

Anyway, I just picked up an MZ-7 for a 'very' good price, (not hot I hasten to add... someone died and their brother just wanted to get rid of all their camera gear, most of it was trash, but this was a diamond in the trashcan, a little cosmetically roughened, but other than that, almost perfect), anyway...

I just ordered the manual, (as he couldn't find this, could find it for everything else...just not this....typical), so bear with my ignorance, but I have yet to work out even 10% of this camera, as having used the MX for the last <cough> years, I was even confused by the lack of winder... lol

It is realy the lens switchability that is worrying me, I mean obviously, being 'pentax' the mount isn't a problem, but I was wondering just how compatable this will work out for me? (as in I don't realy want to start doubling lenses)

Being 'used' to my MX I am totally used to 100% manual anyway, other than the spot metering. So sticking say my 500 mirror on there and having to do the lot, won't worry me much, but will it cause any problems (even if for some strange reason I want to try and stick the 20-80 on the MX)

Thnx for any insights

PS: I presume this camera (the MZ-7) does have total manual mode???

Don't know what you mean by central, I hang on the fringes (east end), but willing to add my name to the list. (although my photography isn't that brilliant and my camera bag would probably have you in stitches)

Isn't that the truth? You and me both.

Don't get me wrong, I do admit PS is good, (and probably not quite as slow as I made out <grin> ) But I also occaisonaly handle files as big as 500mb (artwork) and when the real number crunching comes down to it, PS is very resource hungry. Whereas PSP (due to its lighter features) copes with files like this, I can find PS hangs in the air especialy on a large conversion or filteration.

I just find that for the average user, PSP has what it takes to make good from bad, be creative and I have yet to find much I cannot do with it. For its cost, it is pretty powerfull in its own right. I also do web-graphics and again when I want a job done today, i do it with psp, rather than PS or Fireworks of which I have both. PSP is without a doubt one of the most essential pieces of software on my machine.

But going back to the hype, as you so rightly put it, what does annoy me is: when I find classes teaching groups who don't have the finacial resourses to invest in software like this (or the macromedia bundles...and they wonder why they have piracy problems???), They still insist on harping on about PS being the be all and end all. Or some member of a camera club who almost snubs his nose at the guy who doesn't run PS-25 and the latest nikon coolscan. As Pentax users we should all know how that feels.... for as good as we know they are, you often still find similar reactions from the other big 3 users.

Most of us would love to have the latest and the best, (but you can keep your canons etc., and give me my MX any day) but we have other bills to pay and wives to explain why to.... So if you want something light on the pocket which will do the job almost every bit as well as PS, get PSP 8

I can't afford half the lenses, filters and films I want, never mind £500+ for something, which is basically there to improve lousy photos. <grin>

If I had asked the guy who taught me, his opinion, he would've just told me:

'Well don't take such lousy photos in the first place'

Personally I find there is a lot of snobbery surrounding Photoshop, when 99.9% of the programs resourses are not needed on a day to day basis.

Even with 1gig or ddr ram, a drive that spins so fast its a wonder it doesn't take off, and enough processing power to controll most of NASA and start my own cloning facility. By the time photoshop has loaded, I could've loaded Paintshop Pro, scanned in my image, edited it and hit the print button.

For the money they ask for this overpriced overdeveloped and overrated piece of software, I would say buy two other products and put the rest to a better scanner with better import software(for SLR works, for which I can highly recomend the top of the epson perfection range, which even does a pretty good job on med format, and it comes with silverfast) . Or some more mem cards if its digi your working with, so you can take more uncompressed shots (I keep a pouchfull and use them like films)....any compression being about the worst thing you could do to a photo. (IMO)

The only feature I find usefull in PS is its ability to change resoloution (dpi) better for transferring to the web;

But PSP has all the basic filters you need, layers, masks, histograms, a far better undo cache that doesn't swallow your ram up, thumbnail browsing, and had print preview, with sizing to match your output source and print multi pictures well before PS. (and an upgrade is only £50!!!). It's optimisation wizards are simple to understand (and see what it is you are doing to the file) and to be honest, when you are down to pixel level, cloning a dust spot out, PSP tend to work a little faster and doesn't slow down to a crawl while it has a think.

OKay so PS has some pretty nifty plugins and actions, but how often do you really need them?

I have been using PSP since it was Neopaint, and find it far simpler and quicker to use, and if you use it right, nearly every bit as powerfull.

And whilst I have always also had PS scince v4, I wouldn't actualy buy it (I wait till the upgrade is going cheap somewhere...then moan and buy it)