The two members of my local camera club who were due to be coming to Snetterton with me tomorrow have had to pull out. Leaving me with two spare passes.
If any of the more local regulars are interested in coming along please PM me by tonight. (I'll be heading up from Colchester in the morning)

Perhaps if they only had one 58mm lens, but had a load of 55mm filters (for their other lenses). Smaller filters are also cheaper - sometimes very much so. Some of the more unusual filters I have are only available in 25mm round & 50mm square styles except for special order jobs $$$$$.

A smaller filter is not ideal, but it can be the most practical compromise.

According to the text of the listing the lenses barrels are in fact Brass (should work better than gold).
Somehow I don't think they'd look right on my camera, even though one of my filters is gold plated.

I like Pentax, but I have to admit to likeing my family more.

If I was mega rich I could buy overinflated accessories to boost Pentax's R&D, but perhaps a simple donation to them would be just as effective.

Unfortunately real life is such that my upgrade to a Kr or K5 (which falls nearest to Frogherder's possibilities 3 & 5) has to wait, and I have to make do with another possibility - Can make do as I can afford it.

IMHO CaNikon are generally in the possibility 1-2 bracket (though I'd put 2 as Probably Adequate at a premium price) This is one of the reasons I prefer Pentax.

If as the OP suggests we but everything possible from Pentax to boost their proffits, they loose incentive to make 'more & better gear' because we'd buy it anyway!

Don't get the used one by mistake that's listed as £450!

Simon I can remember looking on e-bay for soft lens cases in the past & being flooded with them. (With many 3rd party ones in the £5-£10 bracket)

I'm sure any photography shop will also have a range that will do the job. The Pentax model you're after may be better, but even the cheaper ones will protect your lens, & remove the urgency of your search.

Having just watched the video (it's blocked at work), I find the bulk of the presentation is putting a huge spin on things.

Film IS effected by gamma rays etc. (Probably more than digital)

Grazing light is NOT refracted vertically down through the layers in film (this would require the emulsion to have an infinite refractive index. He missed out on the fact that reflections from film are less or a problem than from digital sensors though.

Much of his comparisons were based on old digital technology, even though he mentions BAYER filters are used in nearly all modern cameras.

I just showed this to our Radiological Protection Supervisor. Who agree's it's quite possible, as background radiation is generally higher with altitude.
A filght from London to Paris exposes you to ~1/270th of the normal UK annual radiation dose, (going to NewYork is ~15 times more).
IIRC going to Cornwall can give even higher background radiation.

Howerver the effect will be very minimal and is unlikely to be noticable.
I'm quite sure the reason manufacturers ship by sea rather than air is unrelated - air freight is MUCH more expensive than sea freight!

I used it facing out only. When facing the sun I wan't as mech as possible reflected away before being absorbed by other factors. When I get round to mounting it so it doesn't have to be held I might try both ways...

I've just had a very quick play with my new expensive gold plated welding glass.
(According to the Flickr group the gold ones give a better colour cast)
The £5 investment seems worth it as this shot of the sun (through a shade 13) has been done on auto white balance, and the only PP has been a crop.




1/500s F16 200ISO

I'm convinced the spots on this one are sun spots not the muck on my sensor, as they are in a consistent location on 3 images all on different parts of the sensor. (The other two both show sensor muck so I really MUST get my sensor cleaned!!!)

I think the colour cast is much better than I got with the Green glass, but still in need of treatment.