Pentax cameras are particularly good at legacy support (provided the 'use aperture ring' option in the menus has been turned on). All PK(bayonet) lenses can be used without an adapter, older screw mount lenses such as these M42 lenses require an adapter but otherwise have no problems (Fully manual aperture/focus obviously). Many of the cheaper adapters have a flange that, moves the lens further away and thus prevents infinity focus - Pentax made adapters (typically ~£35) all avoid this, as do some of the third party ones (from ~£5).

T2 lenses and Tamron adaptall series lenses are also easy to use with standard adapters - They are designed to be used with adapters on a wide range of cameras.

The camera dosen't need any links top the lens and doesn't even have problems if you just hold a lens a little way in front of the opening. Dust might easily get on your sensor doing this though but it's not difficult to jury rig a solution to that.

The filters are probably less useful - nearly all the older filters are eaisly replicated digitally many just by setting the appropriate white balance on the camera (Auto white balance usually does this fine). In fact the white balance will often effectivly remove the changes the filter introduces (other than flare from reflections, blur for dirt/scratches...) About the only common filter from film days that is still worth use is the polariser and many modern cameras have problems if a linear polariser is used (as most of the older ones are).

I believe both these options can theoretically be done either with or without a lens on the camera. In reality the choice can be limited somewhat by the degree of movement of the telescopes focusing control.

IIRC when I tried working without lens or eyepiece (prime focus) on my Newtonian I found the camera couldn't get close enough to get infinity focused (Not much use for astronomy!)

One of my eyepieces (a zoom model) has T2 threads built in enabling me to get some shots of Jupiter's moons. Shame the K100 batteries failed before I manged to get the focus spot on.

I keep promising myself I'll have another go using the K7 (& live view) but too many other thing crop up and I no longer have access to my previous dark(ish) sky site...

Personally I perfer the camera to underexpose slightly. With digital it's easy to get more information from the shadows but blown highlights are gone forever.

The 560 is more powerful & has a swivel as well as the tilt. AFAIK thats it, not even worth an extra £20 to me!
I use my 360 on a £10 PTTL cable quite often which gives more than just the swivel function - I can get the flash a couple of foot further back & significantly change the lighting angle when doing close up shots.
My only concern with the 360 is the weak battery compartment door.

+1

Good timing BTW!

As long as it's understood it's cloud cuckoo land:

A* 1200 f8
FA*(or A*) 200 Macro
FA*(or F*) 600 F4
FA* 400 F5.6
FA* 300 f2.8
DFA 100 macro WR
DA 14 f2.8
FA 31 f1.8
DA 12-24 f4
AF 1.7 teleconverter
(M)Reflex 2000 f13.5
& of course the Bigma

are all lenses I'd love to have available!
In addition any Limited or Star lens, along with a proper tilt/shift, would be very welcome.

In real life however I think I'll probably just try to cope with the lenses I've got avaliable - I have something available for all focal lengths I'm likely to want to use (except perhaps the gap between the DA10-17 & the DA18-55) although the with some options IQ is definitly disapointing, some are FAR too slow (f64 at 4000mm = useless) & it's MF only above 300mm.

Hi Tammy.
With macro lenses longer the focal lengths give increased working distance for the same magnification, so are better for things like insects that get disturbed if you get too close. Most macro lenses seem to be around 100mm to maximise working distance without making the lens too unwieldy.

If working distance is not an issue short focal lengths are easier to get higher magnifications with.

I've never heard any comments of poor quality in the optics of true macro lenses. (Macro zooms are rarely even close to macro lenses, just focusing closer than normal for their focal length).

There are a number of techniques that can be used with standard lenses to give macro magnifications, they an be very cheap to implement but are generally more awkward to use than a dedicated macro lens, they would also show problems at the edges if the subject was a flat plane such as a book, but this is rarely the case in most macro work. The lenses you mentioned should work well with some sort of extension between the lens & the camera. In its current line up I think Pentax only has two macro lenses a 35mm F4 & a 100mm, but there are third party alternatives from many years of K mount lenses (or even other mounts with suitable adapters). I have a KA mount 28mm macro, but use my (KA)100mm macro much more, neither supports autofocus but from what I hear AF is no advantage for macro anyway.

One point to add to what Snappychappy & PeterKR have said, 'Ctrl' clicking can deselect as well as select. So if you have a batch of continuous files with a few scattered among them you don't want, you can click on the first, use shift click to select the last (highlighting all) then switch to control click to deselect the few you don't want.
Make sure you don't end up double clicking any though or you'll end up opening all of them!

Sorry Bill but the offer only lasted one day, after which they doubled in price - so If you missed the offer £110 is still an excellent price.

Stunning pictures, but surely not at 600 metres (~1/3 mile)!
I know the K5 works better than my K7, but thats just too much to believe.
Am I right in guessing you meant 1/600th second?