That is an interesting option - the OP I think has been using a mini lab and getting digital versions, maybe onto CD, but it seems that home scanning may open up many more options and be cost effective too.

I certainly had not seen a RAW option for scan capture, but it presumably depends both on the model and the sophistication of the software? But are you saying that the file produced could not be read by standard image processing RAW software?

K30 is the more modern option, very good value now I believe. Image quality is fairly close if I understand what people have been saying here recently. There's another thread going on about whether the K30 is 'entry-level' - I have defined it as not, but it is still very suitable for photographers of all types of experience.

From what you've said about your photography and what you need I think the K30 is a great choice - and as I said at the start, it is the newer option.

If you have a computer it may be a good idea to consider your own scanner - I use an epson flatbed V500 model, very cost effective (it does documents also), and captures 48bit and at a high resolution also. You get software to control it to an extent, although there is 3rd party software available which gives many more controls to help in getting the the best scan possible.

You don't have to get prints made either - you can get a photo lab to just process your negs or slides and then scan them yourself. Then you'll have your shots digitally archived, you can edit them and make adjustments and also prepare files specifically to print, which you can send via the internet to an online lab or take a cd into a shop.

Impossible. Incompatable. Does not compute! RAW is a camera specific format for storing in a purely digital form everything captured by the specific camera sensor, plus a lot of 'metadata' about the settings. It includes an embedded jpeg to allow the image to be seen on the camera LCD and in computer explorer windows or catalog programs. There are no actual image pixels to be seen - these are only created when the RAW file is 'converted' by software, usually into a TIFF or JPEG.

A scanner can only output an actual 'image' file - ie one made up of pixels, again usually TIFF or JPEGs AFAIK.

I believe you're limited to this by the technology - but a high quality 48bit scan at a decent resolution should give you a good TIFF image whichwill take a fair amount of post processing adjustments. Bear in mind that you can open this TIFF in some RAW software - ACR I think, Lightroom too I believe, and still use many of the editing controls in the same way. You will have already lost something though - its not the same as starting from a RAW straight from a digital camera.

But it surely will always be better (or more advisable) to consider the subject type and any specific effect you might want and use the most appropriate mode for that. I doubt Smeggy you get many of your low DOF portraits shot wide open in P mode without having to crank the aperture open straight away, an extra unnessary step. It would make sense to begin in Av if this was the intention from the start - this does not involve any extra step if the dial is already set to Av. This would apply to landscapes also. If you're working in rapidly changing light then Tav could be better, or Tv if trying to control the effect of movement. I don't think my camera's computational power is going to be superior to my brain's processing in any of these situations

If you consider the 'priority' aspect of the shot, then you can decide on the most intuitive mode to use - eg : will the priority be a specific DOF effect (Av - shutter speed will vary), a specific shutter open time (Tv - aperture will vary), the need to lock both aperture & shutter speed values (Tav - ISO will vary), or the need to alter the ISO quickly for changing lighting or a specific noise effect (Sv - and I don't know what else changes!!)

You could get to the same settings in P mode, but not without more mental steps and visual references to the numbers, all of which will take more attention and be less intuitive. So the process in terms of the human / machine interface is very different indeed.

This is not to say that P mode has no use - it is good in situations where you have no clear identified 'priority' for capturing the shot, but where settings of an average nature will do - then it could be the more intuitive mode. For me these types of images are a minority though.

The OP asked about green mode above - this is very different to P again. Now you have absolutely no creative control at all - not aperture, shutter speed, iso, not even exposure compensation, and you can't even make the flash fire if it doesn't think it needs to.

It's worth mentioning the 'Program Line' setting (control panel on the K7 / K5). Here you can specify the bias that is applied to default P mode settings - speed, DOF or MTF (optimum aperture for quality on a DA lens). This could be useful I guess, but it won't apply the extreme settings that would give us the most effect we might need.

The following LX features I would categories as 'Higher-level', and presumably advanced for its time : DOF preview, 4 or 10 sec timer, mirror lock-up, viewfinder overexposure warning, flash ready indicator, Exposure overides in 1/3rd stop increments. From the photo I can see it looks like these are mostly directly applied control-wise. And lets not forget the data backs, motor drive features (multi-speed), interchangable viewfinders and 8 focussing screen options.

A lot of this goes way beyond the K500 I'd say, (as far as photographer control and choice goes and in terms of the type of photographer it is all aimed at) .But we're comparing very different technologies in terms of age - I wasn't trying to suggest my definitions would extend through the ages

There are no scene modes either, so it's not entry-level!

I would say that Av & Tv are more 'active' modes for the photographer, and so the choices you make first up are likely to be more positive, a specific decision (eg to start with f1.8 for a portrait) than if you begin in P. With P you take the default (usually averaged) type of settings, then you need to take your active part. There is a risk this will therefore be too timid, and you will not achieve the full effect that may be possible or desirable (its a bit like the scene modes on 'entry-level' cameras I was talking about on the the other thread).

I believe that operating in Av or Tv will result in stronger and more positive user input than P - resulting therefore in stronger images.

I agree that 'fast access' or physical lever / switch controls to key shooting functions would help define the 'level' of a camera's target user - such as the AF / Metering Mode / AF Point Select switches on the K7 / K5 series cameras. This is the sort of thing that pros would traditionally have expected going back to film days.

I don't believe items such as burst rate and buffer will remain as reliable an indicator as to camera 'level' however - these technologies (along with general IQ improvements) keep advancing and I think will continue to be increasingly boosted in lower-end products. I think the best defining features will be 'beginner-assist' type features (like the scene modes) on the lower end products and the 'pro-assist' features on the high end ones (like the switches and levers).

As Jules said just above, No! So the definition theory is holding up The User modes (which the K30 does have) are quite an advanced feature I feel, because they presuppose the knowledge exists of why you would need different settings for different subject types of shooting conditions, plus you need to have the skills to activate and fine tune those settings before they are stored.

The 'scene' modes as you showed on the K-x are comletely automated - they will take the 'program' defaults and bias them towards certain objectives - (eg : greater DOF for landscape, wide aperture for portrait, fast shutter for sports etc). So the user can get the effect without any knowledge of the technical process underlying it. That is what makes those cameras 'entry level' - who they are targeted at.

The problem IMO with these scene modes is that, (when combined with a kit lens as they often would be) their effect is not extreme enough, or their chosen settings are not as extreme as a knowledgable photographer might set manually, to provide a big enough effect, or distinction between the different modes. This can limit the learning impact on the beginning photographer, so their use as a tool at the 'entry level' is limited I feel. A photography book with illustrations of example Av / Tv / ISO settings to try out would be more valuable surely?

Wow, thats excellent, thanks! No, didn't get the invite, but you know, the post has been quite poor around here lately - hope everyone else had a good do That Anvh knows his stuff though - I've got a hard act to follow! Now, how can I fill up all the never ending nights in - YES, I'll order in a whole range of camera instruction manuals and get down to some serious study!

I've tried this also David - its a great option to have, and what amazingly flexible things our Pentax DSLRs are! But I do think the 'half-press to focus' thing is one of those long ingrained camera actions that has become hard-wired into the picture-taking psyche. Its a very hard one to break I think.