Absolutely magnificent set. You, sir, are an artist.

It may be because bizarrely, not all APS-c sensors are exactly the same size, and as such the 'crop factor' may not be exactly 1.5 depending on brand. So if the sensor in your Pentax is 23.7 x 15.6mm (which it may well be), then the crop factor in ratio to a 35 mm film frame would be 1.532, and the equivalent would then be as near as dammit 230-689 (or 690 in round numbers).

Same here, my gear is covered under my contents insurance; all items are non-specified since the individual values are below the minimum level. However, it's important to keep a comprehensive list of item details and serial numbers (I even have photos of the items) to smooth a process that you hope you'll never have to use! I've done this for the vintage film gear too; my minty 1957 AP for example.

Been using BBF for a couple of months now, in combination with AF-C; much prefer it.

Hi couls,

I hope you've got your answer! The guys are of course correct about focal length, perspective etc etc, but it's how the image looks that will confirm for you whether a film-frame-compatible lens is even relevant. For example, I have both DA55-300 and A70-210 zooms (the second a 1980s film-frame) that I can use on my K-5, but the 55-300 is noticeably sharper. Because a modern lens is FFC (film frame compatible), it doesn't necessarily mean that it's automatically 'better'. Purchase of a FFC lens may then possibly be down to whether you'd want to trade in APS-c for a camera with a film-frame sensor when it comes along.

I don't regard film-frame an upgrade for me from APS-c, and won't even be considering it. Why? It's horses for courses. If an APS-c camera/lens combination delivers satisfyingly stellar results on a HD monitor then where's the advantage of film-frame, especially with the not-inconsiderable potential downside of increased size and weight. I don't print my pictures, and since the pixellage of my HD monitor is nowhere near the resolution capability of my standard lens and 16MP APS-c sensor then film-frame holds no draw for me at all. I would not have invested in the marvellous 20-40 Ltd if it did! 😄

Another one for never using them these days. Why would Pentax have developed a Super Protect coat for the front element if they expected people to keep a protective filter on the front of the lens at all times?

It depends on how many shots you want to be able to take; as I say, the 32GB card will hold around 930 RAW images, the 16GB around half of that number. It looks like Richard uses the same card as I do in his K30, and he seems to be happy with it. I've never had an issue with Sandisk cards and keep a 32GB spare as well as the one in the camera.

The Sandisk is really sharp - cut my finger on it last time I took the card out...

Seriously though... which camera are you running, Louise? I have a 32GB Sandisk SDHC in my K-5 which gives me ~930 RAW shots capacity, and writes as fast as the K-5 can output.

Another vote for the 55-300 here; performance is very good throughout the range. The DA version has a good deep hood supplied. If you don't mind a plastic mount, losing the quick-shift focus and the hood, then the DAL version would be a cheaper option.

If you have the composition adjust on when you save a user mode then it will remember it. I routinely have it turned off in camera and adjust in post if necessary - the in-camera function makes saving of the image to the card very slow.

Came late to this thread - the original pic with the turbine blade seems to have more image on the left side than the right side..?