Just out of interest Kris, which tripod do you use with the 67II?

Your suggestion is that each time I use a lens I do a 'enlargement (reduction) ratio' calculation based on remebering the normal focal length for that body. Is that easier than knowing the magnification with this body is 1.5* what I was used to with film? I'd also find it difficult to visulise a '10* enlargement ratio', where thinking '300mm is about right for seeing that bit' is more in keeping with my experience.

As I said before it's the 'effective focal length' that has caused confusion. The crop factor should never have been related to lenses, it's a function of the body, and is of significance if I'm after a new camera.

These days it is easy to mount K series lenses on 35mm film, APS-C cameras (DSLRs & soon the K-01) and micro 4/3 cameras (with a readily available adapter), the Pentax Q will apparently be added to the list soon as an adapter is planned.

Knowing the crop factor of the cameras helps visualise the results each form factor would have with my lenses/potential lenses. Similar visulaisations are needed by 'new generation' photographers in comparing systems.

The 'Crop factor' you're deriding is very much like your 'enlargement (reduction) ratio' but only needs employing on camparing sensor formats not every time you change lens. If I had the money to go medium format, knowing the relative crop factor of 6*7, 645 & 645D... to the historical 35mm standard, would help me choose the right version & the relevant focal lengths.

When the crop factor was first used practically all photographers were familar with 35mm - the exceptions having probably only used compact cameras. If it were to be invented today would a different reference format make more sense? I think not as the most popular size APS-C has several varieties (crop factors around 1.5 or 1.6).

I've now learnt the 'second language' so that when I use one of my old 35mm cameras I end up using the crop factor in reverse... But more often it helps when I'm on forums where some members use micro 4/3, CSC, medium format...

In addition longer than 30 is tele, doesn't help much when the choice s 55-300mm, 600mm or 1000mm.
I use lenses from 10mm to 1000mm just knowing normal is less knowing the language than my knowledge of French!!

I have to admit my recent experience has been with APS-C & 6*7 has a much heavier mirror making mirror slap more of an issue. My MF camera is a Agfa Billy Rocket 6*9 but no mirror so not really relevant.

I have to agree the 058 is overweight (so am I ) but for digiscoping it has come into it's own for me.

I currently use 4 tripods, dependent on the job:
A 7-day shop budget model - for lightweight walking round,
The Manfrotto 058 monster - for studio & long lenses,
A Benbo clone for macro & intermediate weight,
& An EQ3 motorised equitorial tripod for the astro work. (The counterweight alone here is almost as heavy as the 058!)

If money were no object I could get a single tripod to replace several of my options, but I certainly couldn't make do with only one.

Having learnt photography on 35mm flim, I find the crop factor quite helpful. Especially when it comes to comparing different bodies. But I can't see why it was ever described as effective focal length, that has caused so much confusion!
The crop factor is a function of the camera (sensor) whilst focal length is an intrinsic function of the lens. I've seen some e-bay sellers claiming fantasic focal lengths for lenses by applying the crop factor, that just screems to me "stear clear, con artist at work". I'd accept it as confusuion if it was from a obvious novice but it's usually traders...

The stability needed from a tripod varies depending on the sort of photography you are doing. If you're doing wide angle shots, in good light a bit of movement might not be too much of a problem - after all you can usually hand hold those.
As focal lengths & exposure times go up the stability requirement goes up too.

When I was using my old ME, I only had a choice of cheap tripods. They worked fine for most things - but when I tried adding a 300mm lens & teleconverter, you could actually see the camera sagging during the shot. I've now got a Manfrotto 058 Triaut, with a video head, which will go to over 2m height and has proved to be rock steady. There no bounce even at 1000+mm & it will support more than I can afford. The down side is the tripod is heavy you certain notice it after lugging it a quater mile!

As none of your lenses are particularly long (even on APS-C) I suspect your tripod will cope reasonably - unless your doing macro or long exposures where minor problems will get exagerated - though for large enlargements you might find you start too see signs of movement.

I'd suggest shooting at least one film with your existing tripod & see how it works out with your shooting. I'd certainly agree with Unlocker that the central column shouldn't be used.
When it comes to upgrading your tripod (if you need to) I would suggest ensuring the rated max weight is at least twice what you intend to put on it, and it's always a good idea to see them before buying - so many aspects of tripod handling come down to personal prefernce.

Hi John
It depends on the Bellows unit, Some such as BPM have exchangeable mounts.

If your only after using K mount lenses it would be possible to modify the bellows yourself, by gluing a short extension tube on (I've seen some Chinese models for ~£5 that I grabbed for just this sort of use).

There are companies that will make up a suitable adapter for you (see srb-griturn) but unless the bellows have some rather special features (e.g. tilt/swing ends) it will almost certainly be cheaper to get a set of K mount bellows. I suspect the adapter would be ~£75.

What use is that???

There is nothing a driver can do to reduce the effect of the flash &
during a race any ralley driver will probably have too much on to read a sign anyway.

If the flash is used to light the side of the car as it goes past it will have on adverse effect on the driver, but it's best to avoid the head on shots.

I've built up quite a collection of old photography books, over quite a large range of sub topics. There are a few sections that occur in many that aren't very relevant but this is usually obvious - film choice (often covers ISO though), darkroom processing & filters for colour correction (superseeded by white balance) - the only factor I can think of that might cause confusion is 'reciprocity failure' which does not apply to digital. Even in film reciprocity failure only applies to unusually long exposures, so most books don't mention it.
There is a lot of useful information available in film books, and quite a few can be picked up for peanuts.

I thought they made it bright yellow to hide amoung all the speed cameras etc!